Cited by 573Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchClinical practice guidelines implementation

Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the potsdam consultation on meta-analysis

Cook, D.J., Sackett, D.L., Spitzer, W.O.·1995·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00172-m

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cook, D. J., Sackett, D. L., & Spitzer, W. O.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Cook, D.J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-01
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
167-171
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1978868802
Cited by
573
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
29.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
systematic review methodology, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, health care research, review guidelines
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review