scispace - formally typeset

Institution

University of Ottawa

EducationOttawa, Ontario, Canada
About: University of Ottawa is a(n) education organization based out in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topic(s): Population & Health care. The organization has 36763 authors who have published 87034 publication(s) receiving 2913651 citation(s). The organization is also known as: uOttawa & U of O.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

53,418 citations

Journal Article
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

42,533 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A structured summary is provided including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

25,675 citations

01 Jan 2014
Abstract: Nonrandomised studies, including case-control and cohort studies, can be challenging to implement and conduct. Assessment of the quality of such studies is essential for a proper understanding of nonrandomised studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is an ongoing collaboration between the Universities of Newcastle, Australia and Ottawa, Canada. It was developed to assess the quality of nonrandomised studies with its design, content and ease of use directed to the task of incorporating the quality assessments in the interpretation of meta-analytic results. A 'star system' has been developed in which a study is judged on three broad perspectives: the selection of the study groups; the comparability of the groups; and the ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest for case-control or cohort studies respectively. The goal of this project is to develop an instrument providing an easy and convenient tool for quality assessment of nonrandomised studies to be used in a systematic review.

14,372 citations

Book
01 Nov 2000
Abstract: Contents: Part I: Introduction. Structural Equation Models: The Basics. Using the EQS Program. Part II: Single-Group Analyses. Application 1: Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Theoretical Construct (First-Order CFA Model). Application 2: Testing for the Factorial Validity of Scores From a Measuring Instrument (First-Order CFA Model). Application 3: Testing for the Factorial Validity of Scores from a Measuring Instrument (Second-Order CFA Model). Application 4: Testing for the Validity of a Causal Structure. Part III: Multiple-Group Analyses. Application 5: Testing for the Factorial Invariance of a Measuring Instrument. Application 6: Testing for the Invariance of a Causal Structure. Application 7: Testing for Latent Mean Differences (First-Order CFA Model). Application 8: Testing for Latent Mean Differences (Second-Order CFA Model). Part IV: Other Important Topics. Application 9: Testing for Construct Validity: The Multitrait-Multimethod Model. Application 10: Testing for Change Over Time: The Latent Growth Curve Model. Application 11: Testing for Within- and Between-Level Variance: The Multilevel Model.

13,428 citations


Authors

Showing all 36763 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Douglas G. Altman2531001680344
Cyrus Cooper2041869206782
Rakesh K. Jain2001467177727
Robert M. Califf1961561167961
Eric J. Topol1931373151025
Jasvinder A. Singh1762382223370
Deborah J. Cook173907148928
Marc A. Pfeffer166765133043
Richard M. Ryan164405244550
Christopher J. O'Donnell159869126278
Jean M. J. Fréchet15472690295
Stephen J. O'Brien153106293025
George A. Wells149941114256
Nilesh J. Samani149779113545
Seeram Ramakrishna147155299284
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of British Columbia

209.6K papers, 9.2M citations

93% related

University of Toronto

294.9K papers, 13.5M citations

93% related

McGill University

162.5K papers, 6.9M citations

93% related

University of California, Irvine

113.6K papers, 5.5M citations

90% related

University of Southern California

169.9K papers, 7.8M citations

89% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202282
20215,984
20205,712
20195,144
20184,736
20174,786