| scholarly article | Q13442814 |
| review article | Q7318358 |
| P819 | ADS bibcode | 2016PLoSO..1165903A |
| P356 | DOI | 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0165903 |
| P932 | PMC publication ID | 5145149 |
| P698 | PubMed publication ID | 27930662 |
| P2093 | author name string | Hesham G Al-Inany | |
| Ahmed M Abou-Setta | |||
| Kenneth Bond | |||
| Susan L Norris | |||
| Mauricio Ferri | |||
| Mohammed T Ansari | |||
| Chantelle M Garritty | |||
| Abdelhamid Attia | |||
| Maya Jeyaraman | |||
| P2860 | cites work | Why most published research findings are false | Q21092395 |
| Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions | Q24193207 | ||
| Industry sponsorship and research outcome | Q24202591 | ||
| Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions | Q24245582 | ||
| Time to publication for results of clinical trials | Q24245587 | ||
| Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts | Q24245597 | ||
| Assessment of the quality of mini-HTA. | Q51126932 | ||
| Health technology appraisal of interventional procedures: comparison of rapid and slow methods. | Q51907357 | ||
| Medicinal use of potato-derived products: conclusions of a rapid versus full systematic review | Q82621449 | ||
| Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews | Q38450008 | ||
| Rapid evidence assessment: increasing the transparency of an emerging methodology | Q38540191 | ||
| Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. | Q38541823 | ||
| A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts | Q38567626 | ||
| Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals: a methodological review. | Q38586906 | ||
| Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses | Q38754428 | ||
| Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study | Q38819296 | ||
| Publication bias & small-study effects in pediatric dentistry meta-analyses. | Q39041507 | ||
| Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis | Q40663320 | ||
| Evidence synthesis activities of a hospital evidence-based practice center and impact on hospital decision making. | Q41181244 | ||
| Bias in location and selection of studies | Q41694445 | ||
| On archimedes | Q43100182 | ||
| A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments | Q43432771 | ||
| Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework | Q24570441 | ||
| Scoping studies: advancing the methodology | Q24570529 | ||
| What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? | Q24647929 | ||
| Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review | Q24673248 | ||
| More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review | Q24795030 | ||
| A scoping review of rapid review methods | Q26786066 | ||
| EPC Methods: AHRQ End-User Perspectives of Rapid Reviews | Q28078516 | ||
| Publication bias and the limited strength model of self-control: has the evidence for ego depletion been overestimated? | Q28246023 | ||
| Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases | Q28274123 | ||
| Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review | Q29616086 | ||
| WHO Rapid Advice Guidelines for pharmacological management of sporadic human infection with avian influenza A (H5N1) virus. | Q30358901 | ||
| Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. | Q30383894 | ||
| Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue | Q30631847 | ||
| Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods | Q30642721 | ||
| Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey | Q30999735 | ||
| Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review | Q33327185 | ||
| Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy | Q33346969 | ||
| Unpublished data can be of value in systematic reviews of adverse effects: methodological overview | Q33574308 | ||
| Publication and related biases | Q33994869 | ||
| Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. | Q34036655 | ||
| What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments | Q34485628 | ||
| Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review | Q34523783 | ||
| Publication bias in recent meta-analyses | Q35074341 | ||
| How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study. | Q35496622 | ||
| Most overviews of Cochrane reviews neglected potential biases from dual authorship | Q36004197 | ||
| Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study | Q36027782 | ||
| Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias | Q36152510 | ||
| Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared | Q36176759 | ||
| Comparing methods for full versus single technology appraisal: a case study of docetaxel and paclitaxel for early breast cancer | Q37128036 | ||
| Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? | Q37311375 | ||
| The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews | Q37692721 | ||
| US Food and Drug Administration documents can provide unpublished evidence relevant to systematic reviews | Q38121661 | ||
| Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment | Q38180837 | ||
| Publication bias is underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals: metaepidemiologic study. | Q38246560 | ||
| Methods to select results to include in meta-analyses deserve more consideration in systematic reviews | Q38405509 | ||
| P275 | copyright license | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International | Q20007257 |
| P6216 | copyright status | copyrighted | Q50423863 |
| P4510 | describes a project that uses | crowdsourcing | Q275969 |
| P433 | issue | 12 | |
| P407 | language of work or name | English | Q1860 |
| P921 | main subject | evidence-based medicine | Q691640 |
| scoping review | Q101116078 | ||
| P304 | page(s) | e0165903 | |
| P577 | publication date | 2016-12-08 | |
| P1433 | published in | PLOS One | Q564954 |
| P1476 | title | Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review | |
| P478 | volume | 11 |
| Q42321969 | Correction: Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review |
| Q90092330 | Establishing an Evidence Synthesis Capability For Psychological Health Topics in the Military Health System |
| Q92621923 | Evaluation of an HIV-specific rapid response service for community-based organisations in Ontario, Canada |
| Q90996026 | Health economics methods for public health resource allocation: a qualitative interview study of decision makers from an English local authority |
| Q87072233 | Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership |
| Q55456403 | Rapid response in health technology assessment: a Delphi study for a Brazilian guideline. |
| Q49795367 | Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. |
| Q92157561 | The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR): descriptive characteristics of publicly available data and opportunities for research |
| Q38625504 | Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey. |
| Q64246771 | Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage |
Search more.