A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews

to related objects

Location
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
ISSN
2046-4053
Extent
Online-Ressource
Language
Englisch
Notes
online resource.

Bibliographic citation
A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews ; volume:2 ; number:1 ; day:14 ; month:11 ; year:2013 ; pages:1-16 ; date:12.2013
Systematic Reviews ; 2, Heft 1 (14.11.2013), 1-16, 12.2013

Creator
Ahmadzai, Nadera
Contributor
Newberry, Sydne J.
Maglione, Margaret A.
Tsertsvadze, Alexander
Ansari, Mohammed T.
Hempel, Susanne
Motala, Aneesa
Tsouros, Sophia
Schneider Chafen, Jennifer J.
Shanman, Roberta
Moher, David
Shekelle, Paul G.
SpringerLink (Online service)

DOI
10.1186/2046-4053-2-104
URN
urn:nbn:de:1111-201607118000
Rights
Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
Last update
14.08.2025, 10:58 AM CEST

Data provider

This object is provided by:
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.
Show original at data provider

Associated

  • Ahmadzai, Nadera
  • Newberry, Sydne J.
  • Maglione, Margaret A.
  • Tsertsvadze, Alexander
  • Ansari, Mohammed T.
  • Hempel, Susanne
  • Motala, Aneesa
  • Tsouros, Sophia
  • Schneider Chafen, Jennifer J.
  • Shanman, Roberta
  • Moher, David
  • Shekelle, Paul G.
  • SpringerLink (Online service)

Other Objects (12)

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?

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Systematic Reviews in 2014

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Systematic Reviews in 2014

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Systematic Reviews in 2015

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Systematic Reviews in 2015

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)

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

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

Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature

Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials

Related objects