U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Raman G, Gaylor JM, Rao M, et al. Quality of Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Implantable Medical Devices [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Nov.

Cover of Quality of Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Implantable Medical Devices

Quality of Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Implantable Medical Devices [Internet].

Show details

References

1.
Muni NI, Gross TP, Boam AB, et al. Challenges in regulating breakthrough medical devices. Food Drug Law Journal. 2005;60(2):137–42. [PubMed: 16097092]
2.
Sedrakyan A, Marinac-Dabic D, Normand SL, et al. A framework for evidence evaluation and methodological issues in implantable device studies. Medical Care. 2010 Jun;48(6 Suppl):S121–S128. [PubMed: 20421824]
3.
McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, et al. Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review. Trials. 2010;11:37. [PMC free article: PMC2867979] [PubMed: 20388211]
4.
Wieseler B, McGauran N. Reporting a systematic review. Chest. 2010 May;137(5):1240–46. [PubMed: 20442127]
5.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264–9. W64. [PubMed: 19622511]
6.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008–12. [PubMed: 10789670]
7.
Iorio A, Rocca A, Matino D, et al. Systematic reviews in the prognosis field: a critical appraisal of six core clinical journals. Cochrane Colloquium Abstracts Journal. 2010. http://www​.imbi.uni-freiburg​.de/OJS/cca/index​.php?journal=cca&page​=article&op​=view&path​%5B%5D=9558.
8.
Tao KM, Li XQ, Zhou QH, et al. From QUOROM to PRISMA: a survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27611. [PMC free article: PMC3217994] [PubMed: 22110690]
9.
Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Feb 19;148(4):295–309. [PubMed: 18283207]
10.
Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al. Methods and processes of the CONSORT Group: example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Feb 19;148(4):W60–W66. [PubMed: 18283201]
11.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration. Device Regulation and Guidance. 2011.
12.
Implantable Medical Devices to 2014. 2595. Cleveland, Ohio: Freedonia Group; 2010.
13.
Mahomed NN, Syed K, Sledge CB, et al. Improving the Postmarket Surveillance of Total Joint Arthroplasty Devices. Open Rheumatol J. 2008;2:7–12. [PMC free article: PMC2577946] [PubMed: 19088864]
14.
Margey R, McCann H, Blake G, et al. Contemporary management of and outcomes from cardiac device related infections. Europace. 2010 Jan;12(1):64–70. [PubMed: 19910314]
15.
Chung M, Balk EM, Ip S, et al. Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Micronutrients and Health: A Critical Appraisal. Vol. 3. 2009. (Nutrition Research Series). [PubMed: 20734515]
16.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. [PMC free article: PMC1810543] [PubMed: 17302989]
17.
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007 Mar 27;4(3):e78. [PMC free article: PMC1831728] [PubMed: 17388659]
18.
Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, et al. Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 May;61(5):422–34. [PubMed: 18394534]
19.
Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1–76. [PubMed: 12583822]

Views

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...