Published in PLoS One on July 10, 2015
High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine. Eur J Anaesthesiol (2017) 0.75
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (2008) 33.10
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
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 11.77
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 10.02
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
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 5.10
Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an american college of chest physicians task force. Chest (2006) 4.77
GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 3.60
GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.54
GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.44
GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.02
GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 2.83
AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions--agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 2.63
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
GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol (2012) 1.90
Nonsurgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI): grading of evidence in systematic reviews. BJOG (2008) 1.60
A case for clarity, consistency, and helpfulness: state-of-the-art clinical practice guidelines in endocrinology using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation system. J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2008) 1.53
Does published orthodontic research account for clustering effects during statistical data analysis? Eur J Orthod (2011) 1.46
Developing clinical recommendations for breast, colorectal, and lung cancer adjuvant treatments using the GRADE system: a study from the Programma Ricerca e Innovazione Emilia Romagna Oncology Research Group. J Clin Oncol (2008) 1.46
The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol (2013) 1.11
A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Angle Orthod (2012) 1.04
When is a further clinical trial justified? BMJ (2012) 1.03
Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm? Eur J Orthod (2012) 0.95
Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality. J Clin Epidemiol (2014) 0.94
The shortened dental arch revisited: from evidence to recommendations by the use of the GRADE approach. J Oral Rehabil (2011) 0.92
Split-mouth designs in orthodontics: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials. Eur J Orthod (2013) 0.92
Are clustering effects accounted for in statistical analysis in leading dental specialty journals? J Dent (2012) 0.89
Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication? Syst Rev (2013) 0.88
Full-mouth disinfection for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2008) 0.86
Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals. Eur J Oral Sci (2013) 0.86
Grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in clinical dentistry: a critical review of 2 prominent approaches. J Evid Based Dent Pract (2010) 0.84
Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals. J Dent (2013) 0.84
Systematic reviews supporting practice guideline recommendations lack protection against bias. J Clin Epidemiol (2013) 0.83
Full-mouth treatment concepts for chronic periodontitis: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol (2008) 0.83
From the trenches: a cross-sectional study applying the GRADE tool in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. PLoS One (2012) 0.82
Using GRADE for evaluating the quality of evidence in hyperbaric oxygen therapy clarifies evidence limitations. J Clin Epidemiol (2013) 0.82
A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study. PLoS One (2013) 0.80
The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Syst Rev (2012) 0.80
Cluster randomized clinical trials in orthodontics: design, analysis and reporting issues. Eur J Orthod (2012) 0.77
Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent. J Clin Epidemiol (2015) 0.82