Article thumbnail

Risk of Bias Tool in Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture in Chinese Journals

By Yali Liu, Shengping Yang, Junjie Dai, Yongteng Xu, Rui Zhang, Huaili Jiang, Xianxia Yan and Kehu Yang
Topics: Research Article
Publisher: Public Library of Science
OAI identifier:
Provided by: PubMed Central

Suggested articles


  1. (1981). A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial.
  2. (1985). A score system for evaluating random control clinical trials of prophylaxis of abdominal surgical wound infection.
  3. (1990). Acupuncture and chronic pain: a criteria-based meta-analysis.
  4. (2010). Analysis of Quality Standards Assessing Randomized Controlled Trials.
  5. (2011). Applying the risk of bias tool in a systematic review of combination long-acting betaagonists and inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma.
  6. (1995). Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists.
  7. (1996). Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: Current issues and future directions.
  8. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?.
  9. (2011). Assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in the field of dentistry indexed in the Lilacs (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Cie ˆncias da Sau ´de) database. Sao Paulo Med
  10. (2010). Assessment of risk of bias among pediatric randomized controlled trials.
  11. (2010). Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract;Available:
  12. (2007). Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Traditional Chinese Medicine Published in Chinese Journals.
  13. (2008). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
  14. (1997). Components of a randomized clinical trial.
  15. (1998). Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
  16. (2011). eds (2008) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
  17. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
  18. (2005). Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors.
  19. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.
  20. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis.
  21. (2007). Methodology and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine.
  22. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.
  23. (2007). Quality appraisal of systematic reviews or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine published in Chinese journals.
  24. (2009). Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study.
  25. (2011). Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2011) Methodology Checklist 2: Randomised Controlled Trials.
  26. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.
  27. (1998). The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus.
  28. (2002). The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.