Published in Int J Technol Assess Health Care on June 18, 2009
Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med (2010) 5.80
Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ (2013) 3.57
Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol (2011) 2.59
Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol (2011) 1.97
Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS One (2013) 1.73
The Australian 'FORM' approach to guideline development: the quest for the perfect system. BMC Med Res Methodol (2011) 0.93
Steps in the undertaking of a systematic review in orthopaedic surgery. Int Orthop (2011) 0.89
Systematic reviews and health policy: the influence of a project on perinatal care since 1988. Milbank Q (2011) 0.88
Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis. PLoS One (2015) 0.87
Cochrane methods--twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Syst Rev (2013) 0.85
Translating Cochrane reviews to ensure that healthcare decision-making is informed by high-quality research evidence. PLoS Med (2013) 0.85
Dicing with chance, life and death in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: D.I.C.E. 3, a simulation study. J R Soc Med (2014) 0.76
Effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open (2017) 0.75
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (2008) 33.10
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (2011) 29.14
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (2004) 26.08
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (2009) 22.18
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2009) 21.74
International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet (2002) 20.89
Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ (2002) 19.50
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med (2009) 12.16
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol (2009) 11.80
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 11.77
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev (2015) 11.05
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2012) 10.32
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 10.02
Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ (2008) 9.98
Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials (2012) 8.39
A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol (2009) 7.86
Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ (2008) 7.30
Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res (2004) 7.20
Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2009) 7.07
What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ (2008) 6.99
When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ (2007) 6.77
CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2008) 5.85
Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med (2010) 5.80
GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 5.78
Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ (2009) 5.68
Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2009) 5.57
No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet (2009) 5.57
Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med (2002) 5.35
An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2006) 5.29
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ (2008) 5.16
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 5.10
Ethics review roulette: what can we learn? BMJ (2004) 4.99
Effect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. Lancet (2011) 4.74
Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ (2005) 4.34
CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet (2008) 4.20
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 3.93
Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. CMAJ (2003) 3.92
Assessing the quality of research. BMJ (2004) 3.90
Why the GMC should set up a central registry of doctors' competing interests. BMJ (2014) 3.69
A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ (2009) 3.65
GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 3.60
GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol (2013) 3.58
GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.54
All trials must be registered and the results published. BMJ (2013) 3.46
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 3.45
GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.44
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 3.34
GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.30
Supporting the delivery of cost-effective interventions in primary health-care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Lancet (2008) 3.28
Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice. BMJ (2010) 3.27
An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet (2010) 3.12
Treatment success in cancer: new cancer treatment successes identified in phase 3 randomized controlled trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative oncology groups, 1955 to 2006. Arch Intern Med (2008) 3.07
Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet (2009) 3.04
Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Med (2009) 3.04
GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.02
A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci (2013) 3.00
Well informed uncertainties about the effects of treatments. BMJ (2004) 2.96
Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet (2010) 2.96
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 2.93
Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res (2005) 2.91
Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet (2009) 2.86
The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev (2012) 2.86
GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 2.83
How many Cochrane reviews are needed to cover existing evidence on the effects of health care interventions? ACP J Club (2003) 2.81
Rational prescribing in primary care (RaPP): a cluster randomized trial of a tailored intervention. PLoS Med (2006) 2.67
Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol (2011) 2.59
Cluster randomised controlled trial of tailored interventions to improve the management of urinary tract infections in women and sore throat. BMJ (2002) 2.58
Magnesium for preventing and treating eclampsia: time for international action. Lancet (2002) 2.58
Transparent development of the WHO rapid advice guidelines. PLoS Med (2007) 2.57
Is evidence-based medicine relevant to the developing world? PLoS Med (2005) 2.50
Translating research into policy and practice in developing countries: a case study of magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia. BMC Health Serv Res (2005) 2.50
GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol (2013) 2.46
How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ (2006) 2.38
A surrealistic mega-analysis of redisorganization theories. J R Soc Med (2005) 2.38
Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 2.34
Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care (2006) 2.27
Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results. Implement Sci (2013) 2.25
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 2.24
[Guidelines for pharmacological primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases--who should be treated?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen (2002) 2.22
[Which antihypertensive drugs should be used in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen (2002) 2.20
[Which cholesterol-lowering drugs should be used in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen (2002) 2.19
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 4: Using research evidence to clarify a problem. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 2.15
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 3. Group composition and consultation process. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 2.15
Evidence-informed health policy 1 - synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence. Implement Sci (2008) 2.15
HARLOT plc: an amalgamation of the world's two oldest professions. BMJ (2003) 2.14
User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 2.12
Adding fluoride to water supplies. BMJ (2007) 2.12
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 2.05
Evaluating maternity care: a core set of outcome measures. Birth (2007) 2.03
SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking in health 6: Using research evidence to address how an option will be implemented. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 2.02
Balancing benefits and harms in health care. BMJ (2003) 2.01
SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking in health 11: Finding and using evidence about local conditions. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 2.00
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 1.99
Commentary: the 1944 patulin trial: the first properly controlled multicentre trial conducted under the aegis of the British Medical Research Council. Int J Epidemiol (2004) 1.95
Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. J R Soc Med (2007) 1.95
Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA (2002) 1.95