NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Ip S, Kitsios GD, Chung M, et al. A Process for Robust and Transparent Rating of Study Quality: Phase 1 [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011 Nov.
A Process for Robust and Transparent Rating of Study Quality: Phase 1 [Internet].
Show details< PrevNext >
- 1.
- Lohr KN. Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16(1):9–18. [PubMed: 15020556]
- 2.
- Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0, Cochrane Collaboration. 2008.
- 3.
- Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, et al. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010 Aug 3 epub. [PubMed: 20698919]
- 4.
- Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4012. [PMC free article: PMC2764034] [PubMed: 19841007]
- 5.
- Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16(1):62–73. [PubMed: 7743790]
- 6.
- Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2973–2982. [PubMed: 12052127]
- 7.
- Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282(11):1054–1060. [PubMed: 10493204]
- 8.
- Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):484–490. [PubMed: 19716268]
- 9.
- Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, et al. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010 [PubMed: 20698919]
- 10.
- Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann H, Guyatt G. AHRQ series commentary 1: rating the evidence in comparative effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):474–475. [PubMed: 20189352]
- 11.
- Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions--agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):513–523. [PubMed: 19595577]
- 12.
- Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):484–490. [PubMed: 19716268]
- 13.
- Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2973–2982. [PubMed: 12052127]
- 14.
- Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282(11):1054–1060. [PubMed: 10493204]
- 15.
- Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet. 1997;350(9072):185–186. [PubMed: 9250191]
- 16.
- Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(8):450–455. [PubMed: 3807986]
- References - A Process for Robust and Transparent Rating of Study Quality: Phase...References - A Process for Robust and Transparent Rating of Study Quality: Phase 1
- iroquois homeobox 3 [Homo sapiens]iroquois homeobox 3 [Homo sapiens]gi|39930459|ref|NP_077312.1|Protein
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...