- Location
-
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
- ISSN
-
2046-4053
- Extent
-
Online-Ressource
- Language
-
Englisch
- Notes
-
online resource.
- Bibliographic citation
-
Considerations from the risk of bias perspective for updating Cochrane reviews ; volume:4 ; number:1 ; day:6 ; month:10 ; year:2015 ; pages:1-6 ; date:12.2015
Systematic Reviews ; 4, Heft 1 (6.10.2015), 1-6, 12.2015
- Creator
-
Mayhew, Alain D.
- Contributor
-
Kabir, Monisha
Ansari, Mohammed T.
SpringerLink (Online service)
- DOI
-
10.1186/s13643-015-0122-3
- URN
-
urn:nbn:de:1111-2016110425689
- Rights
-
Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
- Last update
-
14.08.2025, 10:52 AM CEST
Data provider
This object is provided by:
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.
Associated
- Mayhew, Alain D.
- Kabir, Monisha
- Ansari, Mohammed T.
- SpringerLink (Online service)
Other Objects (12)
Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?
Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews
Systematische Reviews der Cochrane Collaboration
The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration
Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades
Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook
Validität von systematischen Reviews der Cochrane Collaboration
Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews
Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews
Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability
Die Bedeutung der Cochrane Reviews für die Neuropädiatrie
Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?
Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews
Systematische Reviews der Cochrane Collaboration
The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration
Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades
Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook
Validität von systematischen Reviews der Cochrane Collaboration
Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews
Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews
Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability
Die Bedeutung der Cochrane Reviews für die Neuropädiatrie
Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?
Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews
Systematische Reviews der Cochrane Collaboration
The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration
Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades
Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook
Validität von systematischen Reviews der Cochrane Collaboration
Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews
Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews
Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability