Thanks to all those who reviewed for Systematic Reviews in 2015

zu Verbundenen Objekten

Standort
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
ISSN
2046-4053
Umfang
Online-Ressource
Sprache
Englisch
Anmerkungen
online resource.

Erschienen in
Thanks to all those who reviewed for Systematic Reviews in 2015 ; volume:5 ; number:1 ; day:24 ; month:2 ; year:2016 ; pages:1-5 ; date:12.2016
Systematic Reviews ; 5, Heft 1 (24.2.2016), 1-5, 12.2016

Urheber
Beteiligte Personen und Organisationen
Shekelle, Paul
Stewart, Lesley A.
SpringerLink (Online service)

DOI
10.1186/s13643-016-0205-9
URN
urn:nbn:de:1111-201602263330
Rechteinformation
Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
Letzte Aktualisierung
15.08.2025, 07:26 MESZ

Datenpartner

Dieses Objekt wird bereitgestellt von:
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Bei Fragen zum Objekt wenden Sie sich bitte an den Datenpartner.
Original beim Datenpartner anzeigen

Beteiligte

  • Moher, David
  • Shekelle, Paul
  • Stewart, Lesley A.
  • SpringerLink (Online service)

Ähnliche Objekte (12)

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Systematic Reviews in 2014

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Systematic Reviews in 2014

Erratum to: Thanks to all those who reviewed for systematic reviews in 2014

Erratum to: Thanks to all those who reviewed for systematic reviews in 2014

All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more

All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more

Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers

Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense

Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense

How can we improve the interpretation of systematic reviews?

How can we improve the interpretation of systematic reviews?

Steps toward more complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA)

Steps toward more complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA)

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Trials in 2014

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Trials in 2014

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Trials in 2015

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Trials in 2015

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Reproductive Health in 2015

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Reproductive Health in 2015

The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence

The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence

Verbundene Objekte