1. Homer JJSDR. Levels of evidence in system dynamics modeling. 2014;30(1-2):75-80.
2. Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, et al. A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):9-.
3. Lin GN, L. ;Gu, D. ;Li, S. ;Yu, Z. ;Long, Q. ;Hou, L. N. ;Tan, W. L. Examining the association of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D with kidney cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(11):20499-507.
4. Tebala GD. What is the future of biomedical research? Medical hypotheses. 2015;85(4):488-90.
5. Choi W-S, Song S-W, Ock S-M, Kim C-M, Lee J, Chang W-J, et al. Duplicate publication of articles used in meta-analysis in Korea. SpringerPlus. 2014;3(1):182.
6. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. Bmj. 2013;347:f4501.
7. Naudet F, Schuit E, Ioannidis JJIjoe. Overlapping network meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. 2017;46(6):1999-2008.
8. Riva N, Puljak L, Moja L, Ageno W, Schünemann H, Magrini N, et al. Multiple overlapping systematic reviews facilitate the origin of disputes: the case of thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism. 2018;97:1-13.
9. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? PLoS Medicine. 2010;7(9):e1000326.
10. Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2013.
11. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. The Lancet. 2011;377(9760):108-9.
12. Booth A, Stewart L. Trusting researchers to use open trial registers such as PROSPERO responsibly. BMJ : British Medical Journal. 2013;347.
13. Chien PFW, Khan KS, Siassakos D. Registration of systematic reviews: PROSPERO. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2012;119(8):903-5.
14. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco ACJSr. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. 2018;7(1):32.
15. Booth A. PROSPERO’s progress and activities 2012/13. Systematic Reviews. 2013;2(1):111.
16. Booth A. Providing transparency in systematic review methods: The case for protocol registration. Gerodontology. 2019;36(4):301-2.
17. Tsujimoto Y, Tsujimoto H, Kataoka Y, Kimachi M, Shimizu S, Ikenoue T, et al. Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017;84:54-60.
18. Xu C, Cheng LL, Liu Y, Jia PL, Gao MY, Zhang C. Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey. BMC medical research methodology. 2019;19(1):78.
19. Chang SM, Slutsky J. Debunking myths of protocol registration. Systematic Reviews. 2012;1:4-.
20. Jill Eden LL, Alfred Berg, Sally Morton. IOM (Institute of Medicine): Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews: Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011
21. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2010;63(5):491-501.
22. Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. Cmaj. 2010;182(1):13-4.
23. Ge L, Tian JH, Li YN, Pan JX, Li G, Wei D, et al. Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2018;93:45-55.
24. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Systematic reviews. 2013;2(1):4.
25. Ruano J, Gómez-García F, Gay-Mimbrera J, Aguilar-Luque M, Fernández-Rueda JL, Fernández-Chaichio J, et al. Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol. Systematic Reviews. 2018;7(1):43.
26. Tsujimoto H, Tsujimoto Y, Kataoka Y. Unpublished systematic reviews and financial support: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC research notes. 2017;10(1):703.
27. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS medicine. 2016;13(5):e1002028.
28. Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2003;15(3):261-6.
29. Sitzia J, Wood N. Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care. 1998;10(4):311-7.
30. Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH, Tornetta III P, et al. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a controlled comparison (2). Journal of medical Internet research. 2004;6(4).
31. McMahon SR, Iwamoto M, Massoudi MS, Yusuf HR, Stevenson JM, David F, et al. Comparison of e-mail, fax, and postal surveys of pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2003;111(4):e299-e303.
32. Raziano DB, Jayadevappa R, Valenzula D, Weiner M, Lavizzo-Mourey R. E-mail versus conventional postal mail survey of geriatric chiefs. The Gerontologist. 2001;41(6):799-804.
33. Hollowell CM, Patel RV, Bales GT, Gerber GS. Internet and postal survey of endourologic practice patterns among American urologists. The Journal of urology. 2000;163(6):1779-82.
34. Aitken C, Power R, Dwyer R. A very low response rate in an on‐line survey of medical practitioners. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 2008;32(3):288-9.