D
David Moher
Researcher at University of Ottawa
Publications - 33
Citations - 55922
David Moher is an academic researcher from University of Ottawa. The author has contributed to research in topics: Systematic review & Guideline. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 30 publications receiving 28166 citations.
Papers
More filters
EPC Response to IOM Standards for Systematic Reviews
Joseph Lau,Stephanie Chang,Nancy D Berkman,Sara J Ratichek,Howard Balshem,Michelle Brasure,David Moher +6 more
TL;DR: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of evidence reports and technology assessments to assist public-and private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of health care in the United States.
The Transitive Property Across Randomized Controlled Trials: If B Is Better Than A, and C Is Better Than B, Will C Be Better Than A? § La propiedad transitiva en los ensayos clinicos controlados: si B es mejor que A y C es mejor que B, ? seramejor que A?
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors presented the concept of transitivity and the effect of different antihypertensive therapies on prevention in high-risk patients, through examples from published clinical trials.
ReportDOI
[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas].
Matthew J. Page,Joanne E. McKenzie,Patrick M.M. Bossuyt,Isabelle Boutron,Tammy Hoffmann,Cynthia D. Mulrow,Larissa Shamseer,Jennifer Tetzlaff,Elie A. Akl,Sue E Brennan,Roger Chou,Julie Glanville,Jeremy M. Grimshaw,Asbjørn Hróbjartsson,Manoj M. Lalu,Tianjing Li,Elizabeth W. Loder,Evan Mayo-Wilson,Steven McDonald,Luke A McGuinness,Lesley A. Stewart,James C. Thomas,Andrea C. Tricco,Vivian Welch,Penny Whiting,David Moher +25 more
TL;DR: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement as discussed by the authors was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.