Mathes, Tim

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","187"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Research Synthesis Methods"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","199"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","5"],["dc.contributor.author","Pieper, Dawid"],["dc.contributor.author","Antoine, Sunya-Lee"],["dc.contributor.author","Morfeld, Jana-Carina"],["dc.contributor.author","Mathes, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Eikermann, Michaela"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T09:52:42Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T09:52:42Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014-09"],["dc.description.abstract","Overviews search for reviews rather than for primary studies. They might have the potential to support decision making within a shorter time frame by reducing production time. We aimed to summarize available instructions for authors intending to conduct overviews as well as the currently applied methodology of overviews in international Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1002/jrsm.1107"],["dc.identifier.pmid","26052845"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/91410"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","1759-2887"],["dc.relation.issn","1759-2879"],["dc.title","Methodological approaches in conducting overviews: current state in HTA agencies"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Research Methodology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","22"],["dc.contributor.author","Helbach, Jasmin"],["dc.contributor.author","Pieper, Dawid"],["dc.contributor.author","Mathes, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Rombey, Tanja"],["dc.contributor.author","Zeeb, Hajo"],["dc.contributor.author","Allers, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Hoffmann, Falk"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-09-01T09:50:54Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-09-01T09:50:54Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022"],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract\n \n Background\n Restrictions in systematic reviews (SRs) can lead to bias and may affect conclusions. Therefore, it is important to report whether and which restrictions were used. This study aims to examine the use of restrictions regarding language, publication period, and study type, as well as the transparency of reporting in SRs of effectiveness.\n \n \n Methods\n A retrospective observational study was conducted with a random sample of 535 SRs of effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019. The use of restrictions and their reporting were analysed using descriptive statistics.\n \n \n Results\n Of the total 535 SRs included, four out of every ten (41.3%) lacked information on at least one of the three restrictions considered (language, publication period, or study type). Overall, 14.6% of SRs did not provide information on restrictions regarding publication period, 19.1% regarding study type, and 18.3% regarding language. Of all included SRs, language was restricted in 46.4%, and in more than half of the SRs with restricted language (130/248), it was unclear whether the restriction was applied during either the search or the screening process, or both. The restrictions were justified for publication period in 22.2% of the respective SRs (33/149), study type in 6.5% (28/433), and language in 3.2% (8/248). Differences in reporting were found between countries as well as between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.\n \n \n Conclusions\n This study suggests that there is a lack of transparency in reporting on restrictions in SRs. Authors as well as editors and reviewers should be encouraged to improve the reporting and justification of restrictions to increase the transparency of SRs."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s12874-022-01710-w"],["dc.identifier.pii","1710"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/113830"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-597"],["dc.relation.eissn","1471-2288"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1015"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of the American College of Surgeons"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1025"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","216"],["dc.contributor.author","Pieper, Dawid"],["dc.contributor.author","Mathes, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Neugebauer, Edmund"],["dc.contributor.author","Eikermann, Michaela"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T09:53:27Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T09:53:27Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013-05"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.049"],["dc.identifier.pmid","23528183"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/91420"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","1879-1190"],["dc.relation.issn","1072-7515"],["dc.title","State of evidence on the relationship between high-volume hospitals and outcomes in surgery: a systematic review of systematic reviews"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","227"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","233"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","29"],["dc.contributor.author","Mathes, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Pieper, Dawid"],["dc.contributor.author","Antoine, Sunya-Lee"],["dc.contributor.author","Eikermann, Michaela"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T09:54:33Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T09:54:33Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013-07"],["dc.description.abstract","The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase the adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in HIV-infected patients in developed countries (WHO stratum A)."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1017/S0266462313000317"],["dc.identifier.pmid","23759359"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/91437"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","1471-6348"],["dc.relation.issn","0266-4623"],["dc.title","Cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions for highly active antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","107"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Research Methodology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","17"],["dc.contributor.author","Mathes, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Pieper, Dawid"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T14:32:15Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T14:32:15Z"],["dc.date.issued","2017-07-17"],["dc.description.abstract","Distinguishing cohort studies from case series is difficult.We propose a conceptualization of cohort studies in systematic reviews of comparative studies. The main aim of this conceptualization is to clarify the distinction between cohort studies and case series. We discuss the potential impact of the proposed conceptualization on the body of evidence and workload.All studies with exposure-based sampling gather multiple exposures (with at least two different exposures or levels of exposure) and enable calculation of relative risks that should be considered cohort studies in systematic reviews, including non-randomized studies. The term \"enables/can\" means that a predefined analytic comparison is not a prerequisite (i.e., the absolute risks per group and/or a risk ratio are provided). Instead, all studies for which sufficient data are available for reanalysis to compare different exposures (e.g., sufficient data in the publication) are classified as cohort studies.There are possibly large numbers of studies without a comparison for the exposure of interest but that do provide the necessary data to calculate effect measures for a comparison. Consequently, more studies could be included in a systematic review. Therefore, on the one hand, the outlined approach can increase the confidence in effect estimates and the strengths of conclusions. On the other hand, the workload would increase (e.g., additional data extraction and risk of bias assessment, as well as reanalyses)."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s12874-017-0391-8"],["dc.identifier.pmid","28716005"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/92134"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.issn","1471-2288"],["dc.title","Clarifying the distinction between case series and cohort studies in systematic reviews of comparative studies: potential impact on body of evidence and workload"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","236"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","242"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","22"],["dc.contributor.author","Holstiege, Jakob"],["dc.contributor.author","Mathes, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Pieper, Dawid"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T14:31:16Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T14:31:16Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015-01"],["dc.description.abstract","To assess the effectiveness of computer-aided clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in improving antibiotic prescribing in primary care."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002886"],["dc.identifier.pmid","25125688"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/92120"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","1527-974X"],["dc.relation.issn","1067-5027"],["dc.title","Effects of computer-aided clinical decision support systems in improving antibiotic prescribing by primary care providers: a systematic review"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","225"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Systematic Reviews"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","9"],["dc.contributor.author","Prediger, Barbara"],["dc.contributor.author","Mathes, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Probst, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Pieper, Dawid"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T14:33:14Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T14:33:14Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.description.abstract","Osteosynthesis is the internal fixation of fractures or osteotomy by mechanical devices (also called hardware). After bone healing, there are two options: one is to remove the hardware, the other is to leave it in place. The removal of the hardware in patients without medical indication (elective) is controversially discussed. We performed a scoping review to identify evidence on the elective removal of hardware in asymptomatic patients compared to retaining of the hardware to check feasibility of performing a health technology assessment. In addition, we wanted to find out which type of evidence is available."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s13643-020-01488-2"],["dc.identifier.pmid","33008477"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/92151"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.issn","2046-4053"],["dc.title","Elective removal vs. retaining of hardware after osteosynthesis in asymptomatic patients-a scoping review"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","203"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Systematic Reviews"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","9"],["dc.contributor.author","Morche, Johannes"],["dc.contributor.author","Mathes, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Jacobs, Anja"],["dc.contributor.author","Wessel, Lucas"],["dc.contributor.author","Neugebauer, Edmund A. M."],["dc.contributor.author","Pieper, Dawid"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T14:33:10Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T14:33:10Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.description.abstract","Gastroschisis is a congenital anomaly that needs surgical management for repositioning intestines into the abdominal cavity and for abdominal closure. Higher hospital or surgeon volume has previously been found to be associated with better clinical outcomes for different especially high-risk, low volume procedures. Therefore, we aim to examine the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes for gastroschisis."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s13643-020-01462-y"],["dc.identifier.pmid","32878649"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/92150"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.issn","2046-4053"],["dc.title","Relationship between volume and outcome for gastroschisis: a systematic review protocol"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","119"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Systematic Reviews"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","7"],["dc.contributor.author","Prediger, Barbara"],["dc.contributor.author","Polus, Stephanie"],["dc.contributor.author","Mathes, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Bühn, Stefanie"],["dc.contributor.author","Louwen, Frank"],["dc.contributor.author","Neugebauer, Edmund A. M."],["dc.contributor.author","Pieper, Dawid"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T14:32:54Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T14:32:54Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.description.abstract","The rate of caesarean sections increased in the last decades to about 30% of births in western populations. Many caesarean sections are electively planned without an urgent medical reason for mother or child. Especially in women with a foregoing caesarean section, the procedure is planned early. An early caesarean section though may harm the newborn. Our aim is to evaluate the gestational time point after the 37th gestational week (after prematurity = term) of performing an elective caesarean section with the lowest morbidity for mother and child."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s13643-018-0787-5"],["dc.identifier.pmid","30111372"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/92145"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.issn","2046-4053"],["dc.title","(Update of a) systematic review on the impact of elective early term (< 39th gestational week) caesarean sections on maternal and neonatal health - a protocol"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Clinical Epidemiology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","11"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","138"],["dc.contributor.author","Hoffmann, Falk"],["dc.contributor.author","Allers, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Rombey, Tanja"],["dc.contributor.author","Helbach, Jasmin"],["dc.contributor.author","Hoffmann, Amrei"],["dc.contributor.author","Mathes, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Pieper, Dawid"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T09:54:16Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T09:54:16Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021-06-04"],["dc.description.abstract","Systematic reviews (SRs) are useful tools in synthesising the available evidence, but high numbers of overlapping SRs are also discussed in the context of research waste. Although it is often claimed that the number of SRs being published is increasing steadily, there are no precise data on that. We aimed to assess trends in the epidemiology and reporting of published SRs over the last 20 years."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022"],["dc.identifier.pmid","34091022"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/91433"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","1878-5921"],["dc.relation.issn","0895-4356"],["dc.title","Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]