Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
This cluster of papers focuses on methods and guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and evidence synthesis in research. It covers topics such as the PRISMA statement, measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses, assessing risk of bias, detecting publication bias, and interpreting effect sizes. The papers also discuss reporting guidelines, quality assessment tools, and diagnostic accuracy in research.
Papers listed on taxonomy pages are the top few works per node from the OpenAlex snapshot. That list is not exhaustive and is not an endorsement. The topic map and the journal registry remain separate: there is still no authoritative topic-to-venue or topic-to-organization edge. Search is a lexical lookup, not a claim that a venue publishes a topic.
Most cited
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
- Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
- Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups
- Meta-analysis in clinical trials
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Most recent
- Mapping a decade of quality failures: longitudinal data trends in European Medicines Agency inspections against the evolution of data integrity frameworks
- Scientific Findings Status Report
- Scientific Findings Status Report
- Secondary use and scholarly impact of a portfolio of clinical trials with shared individual participant level data: cross sectional study
- The eefAnalytics R package for the Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials in Education
- Publication of Results of Registered Trials With Published Study Protocols, 2011-2022