Published in Adv Nutr on November 15, 2016
Comment on "Perspective: NutriGrade: A Scoring System to Assess and Judge the Meta-Evidence of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research". Adv Nutr (2017) 0.92
Impact of different dietary approaches on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Syst Rev (2017) 0.75
Olive oil in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies and intervention trials. Nutr Diabetes (2017) 0.75
Reply to JJ Meerpohl et al. Adv Nutr (2017) 0.75
Perspective: Improving Nutritional Guidelines for Sustainable Health Policies: Current Status and Perspectives. Adv Nutr (2017) 0.75
The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics (1977) 216.56
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (1997) 122.24
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med (2002) 83.16
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ (1996) 66.70
Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA (2000) 55.37
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
Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol (2010) 16.24
Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol (2007) 13.46
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol (2001) 12.72
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
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev (2015) 11.05
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 10.02
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials (1995) 9.85
The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ (2006) 8.26
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2007) 7.52
Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA (2006) 7.34
Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol (2007) 7.00
Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess (2000) 6.47
Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ (2012) 6.22
Effect of lower sodium intake on health: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ (2013) 5.78
A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med (2006) 5.43
A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med (2009) 4.80
Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med (2012) 3.63
GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.30
GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 2.83
Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest? Public Health Nutr (2001) 2.78
In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol (2005) 2.77
Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2012) 2.74
Effects of higher- versus lower-protein diets on health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr (2012) 2.72
Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med (2007) 2.54
Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. JAMA (2007) 2.41
Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity. Am J Clin Nutr (2009) 2.32
Effect of increased potassium intake on cardiovascular risk factors and disease: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ (2013) 2.28
Why observational studies should be among the tools used in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood) (2010) 2.11
Low carbohydrate versus isoenergetic balanced diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One (2014) 2.03
A simulation study comparing properties of heterogeneity measures in meta-analyses. Stat Med (2006) 1.98
Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2015) 1.94
Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol (2013) 1.66
Randomized trials analyzed as observational studies. Ann Intern Med (2013) 1.60
Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol (2012) 1.57
ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol (2015) 1.44
Methodologic quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the Mediterranean diet and cardiovascular disease outcomes: a review. Am J Clin Nutr (2016) 1.42
Understanding nutritional epidemiology and its role in policy. Adv Nutr (2015) 1.37
Multilevel models for meta-analysis, and their application to absolute risk differences. Stat Methods Med Res (2001) 1.28
The environment and disease: association or causation? 1965. J R Soc Med (2015) 1.21
Limitations of observational evidence: implications for evidence-based dietary recommendations. Adv Nutr (2014) 1.19
Dietary and Policy Priorities for Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Obesity: A Comprehensive Review. Circulation (2016) 1.13
Paleolithic nutrition for metabolic syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr (2015) 1.12
History of the concept of 'levels of evidence' and their current status in relation to primary prevention through lifestyle interventions. Public Health Nutr (2004) 1.07
Monounsaturated fatty acids and risk of cardiovascular disease: synopsis of the evidence available from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Nutrients (2012) 1.07
Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epidemiol (2000) 1.03
Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. PLoS One (2014) 0.97
Impact of different training modalities on glycaemic control and blood lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Diabetologia (2014) 0.90
Comment on "Limitations of observational evidence: implications for evidence-based dietary recommendations". Adv Nutr (2014) 0.89
Comparison of the long-term effects of high-fat v. low-fat diet consumption on cardiometabolic risk factors in subjects with abnormal glucose metabolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Nutr (2014) 0.85
Interrater reliability of grading strength of evidence varies with the complexity of the evidence in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol (2013) 0.84
Coffee consumption and risk of endometrial cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Sci Rep (2015) 0.80
An algorithm was developed to assign GRADE levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol (2015) 0.80
Evidence-based nutrition: Does it differ from evidence-based medicine? Ann Med (2010) 0.79
Conflicts of interest in nutritional sciences: The forgotten bias in meta-analysis. World J Methodol (2015) 0.76
Rating the quality of evidence is by necessity a matter of judgment. J Clin Epidemiol (2016) 0.76
When Eating Right, Is Measured Wrong! A Validation and Critical Examination of the ORTO-15 Questionnaire in German. PLoS One (2015) 0.77
Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Am J Clin Nutr (2017) 0.75
Dietary Supplements and Risk of Cause-Specific Death, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Primary Prevention Trials. Adv Nutr (2017) 0.75
Impact of different dietary approaches on blood pressure in hypertensive and prehypertensive patients: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ Open (2017) 0.75