Reference health
Methodological Standards for Meta-Analyses and Qualitative Systematic Reviews of Cardiac Prevention and Treatment Studies: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association
98/98 checkable references clean · checked 2026-07-23
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
16 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 98 checked references that resolve
resolves10.7326/0003-4819-127-1-199707010-00007
How Consumers and Policymakers Can Use Systematic Reviews for Decision Making
resolves10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010
Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology – A systematic review
resolves10.1186/1471-2288-11-22
Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews. Cross-sectional study
resolves10.1111/1468-0009.12210
The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses
resolves10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009
AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
resolves10.1186/1472-6947-7-16
Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration
resolves10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement
resolves10.1136/bmj.g6501
Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews
resolves10.1186/2046-4053-1-2
The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews
resolves10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009
Best Practice in Systematic Reviews: The Importance of Protocols and Registration
resolves10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00067-2
Identifying Clinical Trials in the Medical Literature with Electronic Databases
resolves10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286
Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews
resolves10.1136/bmj.317.7172.1562
Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews
resolves10.1111/jep.12448
Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals: a methodological review
resolves10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004
Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews
resolves10.1001/jama.2015.16303
CPAP vs Mandibular Advancement Devices and Blood Pressure in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea
resolves10.1038/srep24521
LDL-lowering therapy and the risk of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials and 36 observational studies
resolves10.1093/ije/dym018
Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography
resolves10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-W
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists
resolves10.1001/jama.282.11.1054
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
resolves10.1136/bmj.b4012
Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study
resolves10.2522/ptj.20070147
Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.004
The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses
resolves10.1093/eurheartj/ehu424
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls
resolves10.1056/NEJM199207233270406
Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction
resolves10.1371/journal.pone.0102670
Accumulating Research: A Systematic Account of How Cumulative Meta-Analyses Would Have Provided Knowledge, Improved Health, Reduced Harm and Saved Resources
resolves10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304111
Effects of antihypertensive treatment in patients over 65 years of age: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies
resolves10.1186/s12888-014-0371-z
Depression and the risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
resolves10.1002/sim.6530
Meta‐analysis of rate ratios with differential follow‐up by treatment arm: inferring comparative effectiveness of medical devices
resolves10.1186/1471-2288-8-34
Simpson's paradox visualized: The example of the Rosiglitazone meta-analysis
resolves10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02168.x
Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the role of meta-regression
resolves10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.01.015
Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bivalirudin Versus Heparin on Myocardial Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
resolves10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00414-0
A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis
resolves10.1002/jrsm.12
A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
resolves10.1002/sim.1761
What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse data
resolves10.1002/sim.1040
Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression
resolves10.1093/ije/31.1.115
Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study
resolves10.1017/S0266462312000086
THE EFFECT OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE RESTRICTION ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEW-BASED META-ANALYSES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES
resolves10.1371/journal.pone.0034938
A Meta-Analysis of Probiotic Efficacy for Gastrointestinal Diseases
resolves10.1371/journal.pone.0069238
The Aetiological Role of Human Papillomavirus in Oesophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
resolves10.1002/sim.2380
A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints
resolves10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991030)18:20<2693::AID-SIM235>3.0.CO;2-V
Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods
resolves10.1186/1471-2288-11-160
Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis
resolves10.7326/0003-4819-159-2-201307160-00008
Conceptual and Technical Challenges in Network Meta-analysis
resolves10.1186/2046-4053-3-109
An overview of conducting systematic reviews with network meta-analysis
resolves10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.01.023
Network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis: What is it and why is it posed to dominate cardiovascular decision making?
resolves10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897
Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence
resolves10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60324-9
Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis
resolves10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.022
Clinical Outcomes With Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Stents in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
resolves10.1016/j.jacc.2013.09.061
Clinical Outcomes With Bioabsorbable Polymer- Versus Durable Polymer-Based Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Stents
resolves10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.003961
Cardiovascular Events Associated With Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapies
resolves10.1136/bmj.g1741
Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review
resolves10.2147/CLEP.S69660
Bias in identification of the best treatment in a Bayesian network meta-analysis for binary outcome: a simulation study
resolves10.7326/M15-2521
Uncertainty in Treatment Rankings: Reanalysis of Network Meta-analyses of Randomized Trials
resolves10.1002/sim.4780141902
Practical methodology of meta‐analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data
resolves10.1191/1740774505cn087oa
Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice
resolves10.1093/ije/dyq063
Statistical methods for the time-to-event analysis of individual participant data from multiple epidemiological studies
resolves10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61368-4
Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women: meta-analysis of individual data from 174 000 participants in 27 randomised trials
resolves10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2003.11.002
A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of Evidence-Based Medicine
The 16 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedOxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of evidence. March 2009. http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/. Accessed October 2 2015.
no DOI — not checkedKristiansen IS. Evidence-based medicine: time for asking critical questions? ISPOR 9th Annual European Congress. http://www.ispor.org/news/articles/june07/ebmt.asp. Accessed March 25 2016.
no DOI — not checkedStawicki SPA. Research guide: guide to statistical software: meta-analysis applications. Opus 12 Scientist. 2011;5:4–5.
no DOI — not checkedPage MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, Forbes A. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014:MR000035.
no DOI — not checkedNational Institute for Health Research. PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Accessed July 10 2017.
no DOI — not checkedDeleted in proof.
no DOI — not checkedPetitti DB. Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1994.
no DOI — not checkedViswanathan M Ansari MT Berkman ND Chang S Hartling L McPheeters LM Santaguida PL Shamliyan T Singh K Tsertsvadze A Treadwell JR. Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. March 2012. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC047-EF. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/. Accessed June 8 2016.
no DOI — not checkedCochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_12/12_2_1_the_grade_approach.htm. Accessed January 17, 2017.
no DOI — not checkedDeeks JD Higgins JPT Altman D. Chapter 9: analyzing data and undertaking meta-analysis. Higgins JPT Green S eds. In: Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed February 20 2016.
no DOI — not checkedBorenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Part 4: heterogeneity. In: Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons; 2009:105–125.
no DOI — not checkedBorenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Fixed-effect versus random effects models. In: Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons; 2009:84.
no DOI — not checkedHiggins JPT, Green S, eds. Section 9.4, summarizing effects across studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. March 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed June 8, 2016.
no DOI — not checkedUS National Institutes of Health. History policies and laws. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-site/history. Accessed June 5 2016.
no DOI — not checkedGreenhouse JB, Iyengar S. Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. , Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, eds. In: The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation; 2009:418.
no DOI — not checkedHiggins JPT, Green S, eds. Section 9.7, sensitivity analysis. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. March 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed June 6, 2016.
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-07-23 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1161/cir.0000000000000523"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1161/cir.0000000000000523/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1161/cir.0000000000000523)