Literature DB >> 11868442

A brief history of research synthesis.

Iain Chalmers1, Larry V Hedges, Harris Cooper.   

Abstract

Science is supposed to be cumulative, but scientists only rarely cumulate evidence scientifically. This means that users of research evidence have to cope with a plethora of reports of individual studies with no systematic attempt made to present new results in the context of similar studies. Although the need to synthesize research evidence has been recognized for well over two centuries, explicit methods for this form of research were not developed until the 20th century. The development of methods to reduce statistical imprecision using quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) preceded the development of methods to reduce biases, the latter only beginning to receive proper attention during the last quarter of the 20th century. In this article, the authors identify some of the trends and highlights in this history, to which researchers in the physical, natural, and social sciences have all contributed, and speculate briefly about the "future history" of research synthesis.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11868442     DOI: 10.1177/0163278702025001003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eval Health Prof        ISSN: 0163-2787            Impact factor:   2.651


  58 in total

Review 1.  Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions.

Authors:  M Petticrew
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-13

2.  Children need international formulary to guarantee rational use of drugs.

Authors:  Maurizio Bonati; Chiara Pandolfini
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-24

3.  Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO.

Authors:  Kay Dickersin; Iain Chalmers
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  A call for systematic reviews.

Authors:  Victor M Montori; Somnath Saha; Mike Clarke
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  An historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results.

Authors:  Keith O'Rourke
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  The move toward setting scientific standards for the content of medical review articles.

Authors:  Edward Huth
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Why promote the findings of single research studies?

Authors:  Paul Wilson; Mark Petticrew; Mike Calnan; Irwin Nazareth
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-03-29

Review 8.  Systematic reviews and health policy: the influence of a project on perinatal care since 1988.

Authors:  Daniel M Fox
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.911

9.  A brief history of clinical evidence updates and bibliographic databases.

Authors:  Paul Glasziou; J K Aronson
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Alzheimer's disease and cancer: the need of putting research into context with previous published systematic reviews.

Authors:  Ferrán Catalá-López; Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 4.553

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.