MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2072770626 · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1089

Special issue on inclusion of non‐randomized studies in systematic reviews

2013· erratum· en· W2072770626 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueResearch Synthesis Methods · 2013
Typeerratum
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research CouncilUniversity of OttawaU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityScottish Government
Mots-clésSystematic reviewMedicineHealth services researchLibrary scienceAgency (philosophy)Psychological interventionHealth careInclusion (mineral)Government (linguistics)Political scienceMEDLINEMedical educationFamily medicinePublic healthSociologyNursingSocial scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Research Synthesis Methods 4(1) The institutional affiliation for Peter Tugwell and the Acknowledgement/Funding Section appears incomplete in some of the articles in this Special Issue. The complete and correct information are shown here. An introduction to methodological issues when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions Barnaby C. Reeves,a*† Julian P. T. Higgins,b,c Craig Ramsay,d Beverley Shea,e Peter Tugwellf,g and George A. Wellsg,h Research Synthesis Methods 4(1): 1–11 Acknowledgements: The workshop was supported financially by the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ; through the Ottawa Collaborating Agency of the ARHQ) and by a grant from the Cochrane Collaboration Discretionary Fund. BCR is supported in part by the UK National Institute for Health Research Bristol Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit. JPTH is supported by MRC Grant U105285807. The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Scottish Government Executive Health Department. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, who are responsible for their content and do not represent the views of AHRQ, the Cochrane Collaboration or its registered entities, committees or working groups, the Campbell Collaboration, or the National Institute for Health Research. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the US Department of Health and Human Services. ——— aClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK bMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK cCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK dHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK eCommunity Information and Epidemiological Technologies, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada fCentre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada gDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada hDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada *Correspondence to: Barnaby C. Reeves, Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, University of Bristol, Level 7 Queen's Building, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK. †E-mail: [email protected] ———— Issues relating to study design and risk of bias when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions Julian P. T. Higgins,a,b*† Craig Ramsay,c Barnaby C. Reeves,d Jonathan J. Deeks,e Beverley Shea,f Jeffrey C. Valentine,g Peter Tugwellh,i and George Wellsh,j Research Synthesis Methods 4(1): 12–25 Acknowledgements: We are grateful to all the workshop participants (see the Appendix to Paper 1); all of whom contributed to the discussions that provided the foundation for this paper. The workshop was supported financially by the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ; through the Ottawa Collaborating Agency of the ARHQ) and by a grant from the Cochrane Collaboration Discretionary Fund. JPTH is supported by the Medical Research Council (Unit Programme number U105285807). The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Scottish Government Executive Health Department. BCR is supported in part by the UK National Institute for Health Research Bristol Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, who are responsible for their content and do not represent the views of AHRQ, the Cochrane Collaboration or its registered entities, committees or working groups, the Campbell Collaboration, or the National Institute for Health Research. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the US Department of Health and Human Services. ——— aMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK bCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK cHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK dBristol Heart Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK ePublic Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK fCommunity Information and Epidemiological Technologies, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada gCollege of Education and Human Development, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA hDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada iCentre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada jDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada *Correspondence to: Julian Higgins, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. †E-mail: [email protected] ———— Issues relating to selective reporting when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions Susan L. Norris,a*† David Moher,b Barnaby C. Reeves,c Beverley Shea,d Yoon Loke,e Sarah Garner,f Laurie Anderson,g Peter Tugwellh,i and George Wellsi,j Research Synthesis Methods 4(1): 36–47 Acknowledgements: The workshop was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ; through the Ottawa Collaborating Agency of the ARHQ) and by a grant from the Cochrane Collaboration Discretionary Fund. BCR is supported in part by the UK National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Medicine. DM is supported by the University of Ottawa Research Chair. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, who are responsible for their content and do not represent the views of AHRQ, the Cochrane Collaboration or its registered entities, committees or working groups, the Campbell Collaboration, or the National Institute for Health Research. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Participants at the workshop contributed to discussions of this paper. ——— aDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA bOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada cBristol Heart Institute, Bristol Royal Infirmary, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK dCommunity Information and Epidemiological Technologies, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada eFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK fNational Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London, UK gSchool of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA hCentre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada iDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada jDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada *Correspondence to: Susan L. Norris, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Mail Stop: BICC Portland, OR 97239, USA. †E-mail: [email protected] ———— Non-randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions Holger J. Schünemann,a,b,*,† Peter Tugwell,c,d,e Barnaby C. Reeves,f Elie A. Akl,a,g Nancy Santesso,a Frederick A. Spencer,b Beverley Shea,c George Wellsd,i and Mark Helfandh Research Synthesis Methods 4(1): 49–62 Acknowledgements: We are grateful to the workshop participants, all of whom contributed to the discussions that provided the foundation for this paper. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, who are responsible for their content and do not represent the views of AHRQ, the Cochrane Collaboration or its registered entities, committees or working groups, the Campbell Collaboration, or the National Institute for Health Research. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the US Department of Health and Human Services. ——— aDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada bDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada cClinical Epidemiology Unit, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada dDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada eCentre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada fBristol Heart Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK gDepartment of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon hPortland VA Medical Center and Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA iDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada *Correspondence to: Holger J. Schünemann, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C10B, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada. †E-mail: [email protected] ———— Checklists of methodological issues for review authors to consider when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews George A. Wells,a,b,*,† Beverley Shea,c Julian P. T. Higgins,d,e Jonathan Sterne,f Peter Tugwellb,g and Barnaby C. Reevesh Research Synthesis Methods 4(1): 63–77 Funding: The workshop was supported financially by the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ; through the Ottawa Collaborating Agency of the ARHQ) and by a grant from the Cochrane Collaboration Discretionary Fund. BCR is supported in part by the UK National Institute for Health Research Bristol Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit. JPTH was supported by MRC Grant U105285807. The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Scottish Government Executive Health Department. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, who are responsible for their content and do not represent the views of AHRQ, the Cochrane Collaboration or its registered entities, committees or working groups, the Campbell Collaboration, or the National Institute for Health Research. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the US Department of Health and Human Services. ——— aDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada bDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada cCommunity Information and Epidemiological Technologies, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada dMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK eCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK fSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK gCentre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada hClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK *Correspondence to: George Wells, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada. †E-mail: [email protected]

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,895
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,931
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Méta-épidémiologie (sens large), Science ouverte, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,142
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,8950,931
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0550,008
Bibliométrie0,0070,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0080,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0280,012

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,903
Tête enseignante GPT0,708
Écart entre enseignants0,195 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle