Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature
- Standort
-
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
- ISSN
-
1471-2288
- Umfang
-
Online-Ressource
- Sprache
-
Englisch
- Anmerkungen
-
online resource.
- Erschienen in
-
Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature ; volume:12 ; number:1 ; day:30 ; month:7 ; year:2012 ; pages:1-15 ; date:12.2012
BMC medical research methodology ; 12, Heft 1 (30.7.2012), 1-15, 12.2012
- Urheber
-
Gagnier, Joel J.
- Beteiligte Personen und Organisationen
- DOI
-
10.1186/1471-2288-12-111
- URN
-
urn:nbn:de:1111-2016032133206
- Rechteinformation
-
Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
- Letzte Aktualisierung
-
14.08.2025, 10:44 MESZ
Datenpartner
Dieses Objekt wird bereitgestellt von:
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Bei Fragen zum Objekt wenden Sie sich bitte an den Datenpartner.
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Bei Fragen zum Objekt wenden Sie sich bitte an den Datenpartner.
Beteiligte
- Gagnier, Joel J.
- Moher, David
- Boon, Heather
- Beyene, Joseph
- Bombardier, Claire
- SpringerLink (Online service)
Ähnliche Objekte (12)
All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more
Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers
Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews
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
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 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)
Erratum to: Thanks to all those who reviewed for systematic reviews in 2014
Erratum: the National Institutes of Health and guidance for reporting preclinical research
The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence
All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more
Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers
Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews
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
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 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)
Erratum to: Thanks to all those who reviewed for systematic reviews in 2014
Erratum: the National Institutes of Health and guidance for reporting preclinical research
The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence
All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more
Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers
Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews
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
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 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)
Erratum to: Thanks to all those who reviewed for systematic reviews in 2014
Erratum: the National Institutes of Health and guidance for reporting preclinical research