Bibliografia

1. Young D. Policymakers, experts review evidence-based medicine. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2005; 62(4): 342-3.
2. Mullen PD, Ramírez G. The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews. Annu Rev Public Health 2006; 27:81-102.
3. Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, Ben-Porat L, Berman B. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr 2002; 2: 3.
4. Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ 2000; 320(7234): 537-40.
5. Pieper D, Buechter RB, Li L, Prediger B, Eikermann M. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(5): 574-83.
6. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 10.
7. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44(11): 1271-8.
8. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987; 316(8): 450-5.
9. Kang D, Wu Y, Hu D, et al. Reliability and external validity of AMSTAR in assessing quality of TCM systematic reviews. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2012; 2012: 732195.
10. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62(10): 1013-20.