Response Comment on “Chlamydia Infection as a Risk Factor for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”
Abstract
No Abstract
1. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, et al (2000). Does the inclusion of grey literature influ-ence estimates of intervention effective-ness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet, 356:1228–1231.
2. Adams J, Hillier-Brown FC, Moore HJ, et al (2016). Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev, 5(164):1-11.
3. Deeks J, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden A, Sakarovitch C. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(27: iii-x, 1-173.
2. Adams J, Hillier-Brown FC, Moore HJ, et al (2016). Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev, 5(164):1-11.
3. Deeks J, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden A, Sakarovitch C. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(27: iii-x, 1-173.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 51 No 6 (2022) | |
| Section | Letter to the Editor | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v51i6.9705 | |
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Pillai AB, Safian N. Response Comment on “Chlamydia Infection as a Risk Factor for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”. Iran J Public Health. 2022;51(6):1442-1443.
