April 1, 2014Open Access

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments

Puntos clave

Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.

Resumen

Differences in assessment and low agreement between reviewers and authors suggest the need to contact authors for information not published in studies when applying the NOS in systematic reviews.

Preguntar a la IA

Me gusta

Guardar

Ver artículo completo

Cite This Study

Lo et al. (Tue,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d56f8a75589c71d767d99d https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-45

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

1The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses2014 · 17,873 citations
2Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group2004 · 315 citations
3XI Cochrane Colloquium: Evidence Health Care and Culture2003 · 12 citations
4Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration2008 · 5,560 citations
5An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods2004 · 213 citations

Preguntar a la IA

Me gusta

Guardar

Ver artículo completo