SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Cui YY, Wang ZE. Development of the concept of Evidence-Based Nursing. Zhonghua Yi Shi Za Zhi 2012; 42: 2629.
  • 2
    Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Annals of Surgery 2005; 241: 450459.
  • 3
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009; 62: e134.
  • 4
    Shea B, Bouter LM, Grimshaw JM et al. Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The Journal of Rheumatology 2006; 33: 915.
  • 5
    Zhao M, Wang H, Zhu L. Writing quality evaluation of papers on systematic reviews on randomized controlled trials published in Domestic Nursing Journals. Journal of Nursing (China) 2011; 18: 812.
  • 6
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. The Lancet 1999; 354: 18961900.
  • 7
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group. The British Journal of Surgery 2000; 7: 14481454.
  • 8
    Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: Case study. British Medical Journal 2006; 332: 202209.
  • 9
    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. British Medical Journal 2009; 339: b2700.
  • 10
    Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS ONE 2007; 2: e1350.
  • 11
    Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009; 62: 10131020.
  • 12
    Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA et al. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2007; 7: 10.
  • 13
    Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of InterventionsVersion 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from URL: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed May 2011.
  • 14
    Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. British Medical Journal 2006; 333: 597600.
  • 15
    Knobloch K, Yoon U, Vogt PM. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 2011; 39: 9192.
  • 16
    Zhu D, Huang W, Liu L. Evaluation on articles with randomly controlled clinical nursing test in published ‘Nursing Research’. Nursing Research 2002; 16: 183185.
  • 17
    Ma B, Guo J, Qi G et al. Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e20185.
  • 18
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy 2009; 89: 873880.