1. |
Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, et al. Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature, 2018, 558(7710): 361-364.
|
2. |
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009, 339(1): b2700.
|
3. |
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018, 169(7): 467-473.
|
4. |
Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ, 2016, 352: i157.
|
5. |
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med, 2015, 162(11): 777-784.
|
6. |
Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med, 2016, 13(5): e1002028.
|
7. |
Campbell M, Katikireddi SV, Sowden A, et al. Lack of transparency in reporting narrative synthesis of quantitative data: a methodological assessment of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 105: 1-9.
|
8. |
Campbell M, Katikireddi S, Sowden A, et al. Transparency in the reporting and conduct of narrative synthesis of quantitative data in systematic reviews (conference abstract). J Epidemiol Community Health, 2018, 72(Suppl 1): A23.
|
9. |
Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product of the ESRC methods programme (version I). Lancashire: University of Lancaster, 2006.
|
10. |
Campbell M, Katikireddi SV, Sowden A, et al. Improving conduct and reporting of narrative synthesis of quantitative data (ICONS-Quant): protocol for a mixed methods study to develop a reporting guideline. BMJ Open, 2018, 8(2): e020064.
|
11. |
McKenzie J, Brennan S. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 321-348.
|
12. |
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. J Adv Nurs, 2013, 69(5): 1005-1022.
|
13. |
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med, 2013, 11(1): 20.
|
14. |
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2012, 12(1): 181.
|
15. |
France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. Psychooncology, 2019, 28(3): 447-458.
|
16. |
Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med, 2010, 7(2): e1000217.
|
17. |
McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, et al. Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 33-66.
|
18. |
Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods, 2011, 2(1): 33-42.
|
19. |
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 2015, 350(6): h1258.
|
20. |
Thomas J, Kneale D, McKenzie JE, et al. Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 13-32.
|
21. |
Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2000, 19(22): 3127-3131.
|
22. |
Higgins J, Li T, Deeks J. Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 143-176.
|
23. |
Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, et al. Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 376-402.
|
24. |
Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ, 2001, 322(7300): 1479-1480.
|
25. |
Ogilvie D, Fayter D, Petticrew M, et al. The harvest plot: a method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2008, 8(1): 8.
|
26. |
Thomson HJ, Thomas S. The effect direction plot: visual display of non-standardised effects across multiple outcome domains. Res Synth Methods, 2013, 4(1): 95-101.
|
27. |
Harrison S, Jones HE, Martin RM, et al. The albatross plot: A novel graphical tool for presenting results of diversely reported studies in a systematic review. Res Synth Methods, 2017, 8(3): 281-289.
|
28. |
Schriger DL, Sinha R, Schroter S, et al. From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal. Ann Emerg Med, 2006, 48(6): 750-756.
|
29. |
McGill R, Tukey JW, Larsen WA. Variations of box plots. Am Stat, 1978, 32: 12-16.
|
30. |
Rehfuess EA, Booth A, Brereton L, et al. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A priori, staged, and iterative approaches. Res Synth Methods, 2018, 9(1): 13-24.
|
31. |
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
|
32. |
Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, et al. Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: study protocol, 2018. Available at: https://osf.io/2v7mk/.
|
33. |
Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest, 2018, 48(6): e12931.
|
34. |
Melendez-Torres GJ, Thomas J, Lorenc T, et al. Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 153.
|