scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Southern Denmark

EducationOdense, Syddanmark, Denmark
About: University of Southern Denmark is a education organization based out in Odense, Syddanmark, Denmark. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 11928 authors who have published 37918 publications receiving 1258559 citations. The organization is also known as: SDU.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
29 Mar 2021-BMJ
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.
Abstract: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

16,613 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
28 Aug 2019-BMJ
TL;DR: The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool has been updated to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.
Abstract: Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.

9,228 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
12 Oct 2016-BMJ
TL;DR: Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions is developed, a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units or clusters of individuals to comparison groups.
Abstract: Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

8,028 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
13 Mar 2003-Nature
TL;DR: The ability of mass spectrometry to identify and, increasingly, to precisely quantify thousands of proteins from complex samples can be expected to impact broadly on biology and medicine.
Abstract: Recent successes illustrate the role of mass spectrometry-based proteomics as an indispensable tool for molecular and cellular biology and for the emerging field of systems biology. These include the study of protein-protein interactions via affinity-based isolations on a small and proteome-wide scale, the mapping of numerous organelles, the concurrent description of the malaria parasite genome and proteome, and the generation of quantitative protein profiles from diverse species. The ability of mass spectrometry to identify and, increasingly, to precisely quantify thousands of proteins from complex samples can be expected to impact broadly on biology and medicine.

6,597 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Mohsen Naghavi1, Haidong Wang1, Rafael Lozano1, Adrian Davis2  +728 moreInstitutions (294)
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as discussed by the authors, the authors used the GBD 2010 methods with some refinements to improve accuracy applied to an updated database of vital registration, survey, and census data.

5,792 citations


Authors

Showing all 12150 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Paul W. H. I. Parren9333927784
Christopher G. Proud9136627283
Per Aagaard9145329857
David Lloyd90101737691
Diana Eccles9035436226
Steffen Loft9048628726
Joseph A. Murray9058634748
Per Kragh Andersen8946334192
James W. Vaupel8943434286
James W. Hicks8940651636
Gregory D. Scholes8844530538
Ole N. Jensen8834530142
Knut Borch-Johnsen8833340123
Mikkel Østergaard8758327162
Nigel K Arden8655736724
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Copenhagen
149.7K papers, 5.9M citations

96% related

Lund University
124.6K papers, 5M citations

96% related

Utrecht University
139.3K papers, 6.2M citations

93% related

University of British Columbia
209.6K papers, 9.2M citations

93% related

University of Amsterdam
140.8K papers, 5.9M citations

93% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202382
2022410
20214,042
20203,614
20192,967
20182,603