Systematic review: better or (otherwise) misleading for clinical decision?

Keywords

Systematic review, Critical appraisal, Medicine, Evidence-based medicine, Quality (philosophy)

References

• The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 "negative" trials.克哉 中村, 武洋 越智, 昌昭 松尾 — 1978
• Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projectsJerome M Stern, R. J. Simes — 1997
• Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviewsCynthia D. Mulrow — 1994
• Critical Appraisal of Epidemiological Studies and Clinical TrialsMark Elwood — 2007
• The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus.Arianne P. Verhagen, Henrica C. W. de Vet, Robert A. de Bie — 1998
• Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science.Kay Dickersin, Jesse A. Berlin — 1992
• Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature.Sander Greenland — 1987
• Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis.D.J. Cook, David L. Sackett, Walter O. Spitzer — 1995
• The medical review article: state of the science.Cynthia D. Mulrow — 1987
• Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research1Gene V. Glass — 1976
• Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.Alejandro R. Jadad, Deborah J. Cook, Alison L Jones — 1998
• STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS: VII. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ARITHMETIC MEANR. L. Plackett — 1958
• Perusing the literature: comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal trials database.Kay Dickersin, Peg Hewitt, Lesley Mutch — 1985
• Medical Heuristics: The Silent Adjudicators of Clinical PracticeClement J. McDonald — 1996
• Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis.Allan S. Detsky, C. David Naylor, Keith O’Rourke — 1992
• What physicians know.S J Tanenbaum — 1993
• Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards.Kay Dickersin — 1992
• A prospective study of serum lipids and risk of diabetic macular edema in type 1 diabetes.Biljana Miljanović, Robert J. Glynn, David M. Nathan — 2004
• Improving the Quality of Reports of Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: The QUOROM StatementQUOROM Group, David Moher, Deborah J Cook — 1999
• How to formulate research recommendationsP. S. Brown, Klara Brunnhuber, Kalipso Chalkidou — 2006

Cited by

No citing papers recorded for this paper.

Related papers

• Critical appraisal for emergency medicine: 6 Systematic reviewsSteve Goodacre — 2009
• Basic methods for systematic reviewMing Liu — 2001
• Systematic reviews—Benefits and pitfallsKlaus Linde — 2009
• What is a clinical reviewNorman Vetter — 2003
• Systematic Reviews: The Good, the Bad, and the UglyYuhong Yuan, Richard H. Hunt — 2009
• P1-182 A taxonomy of bias in systematic reviewsKathryn H. Jacobsen — 2011
• More systematic reviews needed to improve occupational health.Jos Verbeek — 2007
• Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviewsCynthia D. Mulrow — 1994
• Synthesizing study results in a systematic review.Jos Verbeek, Jani Ruotsalainen, Jan L. Hoving — 2012