For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
32
views
64
references
 Top references
cited by
164
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      0
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials

      journal-article
      Author(s): 1 , 1 , 2
      Other contributor(s): (Other)
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Publisher: Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs

          John Concato, Nirav Shah, Ralph Horwitz (2000)
          New England Journal of Medicine, 342(25), 1887-1892
          Article 0 comments Cited 626 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies.

            Margaret Sampson, Jessie L. McGowan, Elise Cogo … (2009)
            Complex and highly sensitive electronic literature search strategies are required for systematic reviews; however, no guidelines exist for their peer review. Poor searches may fail to identify existing evidence because of inadequate recall (sensitivity) or increase the resource requirements of reviews as a result of inadequate precision. Our objective was to create an annotated checklist for electronic search strategy peer review. A systematic review of the library and information retrieval literature for important elements in electronic search strategies was conducted, along with a survey of individuals experienced in systematic review searching. Six elements with a strong consensus as to their importance in peer review were accurate translation of the research question into search concepts, correct choice of Boolean operators and of line numbers, adequate translation of the search strategy for each database, inclusion of relevant subject headings, and absence of spelling errors. Seven additional elements had partial support and are included in this guideline. This evidence-based guideline facilitates the improvement of search quality through peer review, and thus the improvement in quality of systematic reviews. It is relevant for librarians/information specialists, journal editors, developers of knowledge translation tools, research organizations, and funding bodies.
            Article 0 comments Cited 257 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies

              J J Deeks, J Dinnes, R D'Amico … (2003)
              Article 0 comments Cited 251 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Publisher: Wiley
                Publication date (Electronic): 2014
                Publication date (Issued): 29 April 2014
                Publication date Updated: 10 August 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University of California, San Francisco; Global Health Sciences; San Francisco California USA 94105
                [2 ] University of California San Francisco; Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Institute for Health Policy Studies; Suite 420, Box 0613 3333 California Street San Francisco California USA 94143-0613
                Article
                DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000034.PUB2
                PubMed ID: 24782322
                SO-VID: 389932e3-15f5-45a0-aeeb-992714d81e81
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article