Raising the bar for systematic reviews with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

BJU International

Volumn 119, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 193-

  Dahm, Philipp ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UROLOGY; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; PUBLICATION; UNITED KINGDOM;

HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; UNITED KINGDOM; UROLOGY;

EID: 85009278963     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.13754     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. Dahm P, Preminger GM. Introducing levels of evidence to publications in urology. BJU Int 2007; 100: 246–7
2. Canfield SE, Dahm P. Introduction to a new series: advanced topics in evidence-based urologic oncology. Urol Oncol 2011; 29: 446
3. Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA 2014; 312: 171–9
4. Han JL, Gandhi S, Bockoven CG, Narayan VM, Dahm P. The landscape of systematic reviews in urology (1998 to 2015): an assessment of methodological quality. BJU Int 2016 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/bju.13653.
5. Narayan VM, Cone EB, Smith D, Scales CD Jr, Dahm P. Improved reporting of randomized controlled trials in the urologic literature. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 1044–9
6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008; 336: 995–8