Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta‐epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta‐epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case

Published:2020-01-20 Issue:2 Volume:11 Page:260-274
ISSN:1759-2879
Container-title:Research Synthesis Methods
language:en
Short-container-title:Res Syn Meth

Author:

Moustgaard Helene¹²³^ORCID,Jones Hayley E⁴,Savović Jelena⁴⁵,Clayton Gemma L⁴,Sterne Jonathan AC⁴,Higgins Julian PT⁴,Hróbjartsson Asbjørn¹²³

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO)Odense University Hospital Odense C Denmark

2. Department of Clinical ResearchUniversity of Southern Denmark Odense M Denmark

3. Open patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN)Odense University Hospital Odense C Denmark

4. Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of Bristol Bristol UK

5. National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West)University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust Bristol UK

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Education

Link

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jrsm.1392

Reference48 articles.

1. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials

2. Empirical Evidence of Bias

3. The impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomized clinical trials: a meta‐epidemiological study;Moustgaard H;BMJ,2020

4. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta-epidemiological’ research

5. Models for potentially biased evidence in meta-analysis using empirically based priors

Cited by 13 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Meta-epidemiology and the MetaBLIND study: Response to Tack;Journal of Health Psychology;2023-04-10

2. Extension of the Composite Quality Score (CQS) as an appraisal tool for prospective, controlled clinical therapy trials–A systematic review of meta-epidemiological evidence;PLOS ONE;2022-12-30

3. Intervention effect estimates in randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care versus secondary or tertiary care settings: a meta-epidemiological study;BMC Medical Research Methodology;2022-12-22

4. Commercial funding and estimated intervention effects in randomized clinical trials: Systematic review of meta‐epidemiological studies;Research Synthesis Methods;2022-12-02

5. Trial-level characteristics associate with treatment effect estimates: a systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies;BMC Medical Research Methodology;2022-06-15