The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews

[1] Li T(2012)What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities Ann Intern Med 156 367-377

[2] Vedula SS(2016)Interventions for age-related macular degeneration: are practice guidelines based on systematic reviews? Ophthalmology 123 884-897

[3] Scherer R(2016)Global vision impairment and blindness due to uncorrected refractive error, 1990-2010 Optom Vis Sci 93 227-234

[4] Dickersin K(2010)Register systematic reviews CMAJ 182 805-1945

[5] Lindsley K(2010)Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: a case study using primary open-angle glaucoma Ophthalmology 117 1937-269

[6] Li T(2007)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 7 10-355

[7] Ssemanda E(2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement Ann Intern Med 151 264-294

[8] Virgili G(2015)Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research on management of primary angle closure: a survey of Asia-Pacific clinicians J Glaucoma 24 348-350

[9] Dickersin K(2015)Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews Ann Intern Med 162 287-460

[10] Naidoo KS(2016)Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2 CD009799-421

[1] Li T(2012)What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities Ann Intern Med 156 367-377

[2] Vedula SS(2016)Interventions for age-related macular degeneration: are practice guidelines based on systematic reviews? Ophthalmology 123 884-897

[3] Scherer R(2016)Global vision impairment and blindness due to uncorrected refractive error, 1990-2010 Optom Vis Sci 93 227-234

[4] Dickersin K(2010)Register systematic reviews CMAJ 182 805-1945

[5] Lindsley K(2010)Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: a case study using primary open-angle glaucoma Ophthalmology 117 1937-269

[6] Li T(2007)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 7 10-355

[7] Ssemanda E(2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement Ann Intern Med 151 264-294

[8] Virgili G(2015)Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research on management of primary angle closure: a survey of Asia-Pacific clinicians J Glaucoma 24 348-350

[9] Dickersin K(2015)Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews Ann Intern Med 162 287-460

[10] Naidoo KS(2016)Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2 CD009799-421