2022
Fatores de risco de transtornos alimentares: revisão guarda-chuva de metanálises publicadas: PDF em inglês: http://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2020-1099
Solmi M, Radua J, Stubbs B, Ricca V, Moretti D, Busatta D, Carvalho A, Dragioti E, Favaro A, Monteleone A, Shin J, Fusar-Poli P, Castellini G. Fatores de risco de transtornos alimentares: revisão guarda-chuva de metanálises publicadas: PDF em inglês: http://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2020-1099. Debates Em Psiquiatria 2022, 12: 1-34. DOI: 10.25118/2763-9037.2022.v12.460.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchRisk factorsAssessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2Eating DisordersSystematic review of observational studiesMeta-analysesExcess significance biasReview of observational studiesSystematic Reviews 2Grade significant evidenceUmbrella review approachRandom-effects meta-analysesSmall-study effectsProspective cohort studyAMSTAR-2Cohort studySystematic reviewObservational studyReviewer 2Anorexia nervosaBulimia nervosaDisordersStressful eventsRiskCredible evidenceAssociation
2021
Risk factors for eating disorders: an umbrella review of published meta-analyses
Solmi M, Radua J, Stubbs B, Ricca V, Moretti D, Busatta D, Carvalho A, Dragioti E, Favaro A, Monteleone A, Shin J, Fusar-Poli P, Castellini G. Risk factors for eating disorders: an umbrella review of published meta-analyses. Brazilian Journal Of Psychiatry 2021, 43: 314-323. PMID: 32997075, PMCID: PMC8136381, DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2020-1099.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsMeta-analysesRisk factorsAssessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2Systematic review of observational studiesReview of observational studiesExcess significance biasSystematic Reviews 2Grade significant evidenceUmbrella review approachRandom-effects meta-analysesSmall-study effectsProspective cohort studyEating DisordersAMSTAR-2Umbrella reviewUmbrella review of published meta-analysesCohort studySystematic reviewReviewer 2Observational studyStressful eventsCredible evidenceRiskAnorexia nervosaAssociation
2020
Assessing the quality of studies in meta‐research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools
Luchini C, Veronese N, Nottegar A, Shin J, Gentile G, Granziol U, Soysal P, Alexinschi O, Smith L, Solmi M. Assessing the quality of studies in meta‐research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2020, 20: 185-195. PMID: 32935459, DOI: 10.1002/pst.2068.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsAssessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2Quality of evidence synthesisConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsAssess quality of individual studiesQuality of individual studiesEvidence synthesisQuality of studiesNewcastle-Ottawa ScaleSystematic reviewMeta-analysesAssess qualityReporting of Observational StudiesSystematic Reviews 2Cochrane risk of bias tool 2Health-related decisionsIndividual studiesObservational studyQuality assessment toolPreferred Reporting ItemsHighest level of evidenceRandomized Controlled TrialsLevel of evidenceConsolidated StandardsReporting TrialsTool 2
This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply