Sara J. Ratichek
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Sara J. Ratichek has a total of 17 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Angie Mae Rodday
Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA
1 shared publication - Brian W. Pennarola
The Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA,
1 shared publication - Deborah K. Mayer
School of Nursing, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
1 shared publication - Eric B. Bass
Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University
1 shared publication - Eva Guinan
DF/CH Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Program, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, USA
1 shared publication - Joseph Lau
Center for Clinical Evidence Synthesis, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 18 December 2014
- Published by Springer Nature in Supportive Care in Cancer
- Vol. 23 (7) , 1997-2006
Changing factors associated with parent activation after pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant
To identify factors associated with parent activation in parents of children undergoing pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in the 6 months following HSCT, and to address if their association with parent activation changes over time.
- 18 December 2014
- Published by Springer Nature in Supportive Care in Cancer
- Vol. 23 (7) , 1997-2006
Changing factors associated with parent activation after pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant
To identify factors associated with parent activation in parents of children undergoing pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in the 6 months following HSCT, and to address if their association with parent activation changes over time.
- Open Access
- 27 August 2013
- Published by Springer Nature in Systematic Reviews
- Vol. 2 (1) , 69
Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards
In 2011, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified a set of methodological standards to improve the validity, trustworthiness, and usefulness of systematic reviews. These standards, based on a mix of theoretical principles, empiric evidence, and commonly considered best practices, set a high bar for authors of systematic reviews.Based on over 15 years of experience conducting systematic reviews, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program has examined the EPC's adherence and agreement with the IOM standards. Even such a large program, with infrastructure and resource support, found challenges in implementing all of the IOM standards. We summarize some of the challenges in implementing the IOM standards as a whole and suggest some considerations for individual or smaller research groups needing to prioritize which standards to adhere to, yet still achieve the highest quality and utility possible for their systematic reviews.
- 27 August 2013
- Published by Springer Nature in Systematic Reviews
- Vol. 2 (1) , 69
Open AccessChallenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards
In 2011, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified a set of methodological standards to improve the validity, trustworthiness, and usefulness of systematic reviews. These standards, based on a mix of theoretical principles, empiric evidence, and commonly considered best practices, set a high bar for authors of systematic reviews.Based on over 15 years of experience conducting systematic reviews, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program has examined the EPC's adherence and agreement with the IOM standards. Even such a large program, with infrastructure and resource support, found challenges in implementing all of the IOM standards. We summarize some of the challenges in implementing the IOM standards as a whole and suggest some considerations for individual or smaller research groups needing to prioritize which standards to adhere to, yet still achieve the highest quality and utility possible for their systematic reviews.