Rapid Reviews Info

@rapidreviews_i

All things relating to rapid reviews. Current systematic review methods take too long. Luckily there is lots of exciting work being undertaken to speed them up

Vrijeme pridruživanja: studeni 2015.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @rapidreviews_i

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @rapidreviews_i

  1. New Article: Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy And the implications for evidence synthesis

    Poništi
  2. 4. velj
    Poništi
  3. 4. velj

    Bottom line: Systematic reviews (diagnostic or otherwise) rarely include all trials, relying on a “biased subsample” (the words of Glasziou and Chalmers) of studies. Implications for rapid reviews:

    Poništi
  4. 4. velj
    Poništi
  5. 4. velj

    New Article: Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy And the implications for evidence synthesis

    Poništi
  6. 3. velj
    Poništi
  7. 2. velj

    New Article: Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy And the implications for evidence synthesis

    Poništi
  8. 2. velj

    Bottom line: Systematic reviews (diagnostic or otherwise) rarely include all trials, relying on a “biased subsample” (the words of Glasziou and Chalmers) of studies. Implications for rapid reviews:

    Poništi
  9. 2. velj
    Poništi
  10. 2. velj

    New Article: Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy And the implications for evidence synthesis

    Poništi
  11. 1. velj

    Bottom line: Systematic reviews (diagnostic or otherwise) rarely include all trials, relying on a “biased subsample” (the words of Glasziou and Chalmers) of studies. Implications for rapid reviews:

    Poništi
  12. 1. velj
    Poništi
  13. 1. velj

    New Article: Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy And the implications for evidence synthesis

    Poništi
  14. 31. sij

    New Article: Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy And the implications for evidence synthesis

    Poništi
  15. 31. sij

    Bottom line: Systematic reviews (diagnostic or otherwise) rarely include all trials, relying on a “biased subsample” (the words of Glasziou and Chalmers) of studies. Implications for rapid reviews:

    Poništi
  16. 31. sij
    Poništi
  17. 31. sij

    Bottom line: Systematic reviews (diagnostic or otherwise) rarely include all trials and therefore rely on a “biased subsample” (the words of Glasziou and Chalmers) of studies. Implications for rapid reviews:

    Poništi
  18. 31. sij
    Poništi
  19. 31. sij

    New Article: Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy And the implications for evidence synthesis

    Poništi
  20. 29. sij

    New article: Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowdbased, randomized controlled trial With some comments...

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·