Literature DB >> 9054282

Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions.

D J Cook1, C D Mulrow, R B Haynes.   

Abstract

Systematic reviews can help practitioners keep abreast of the medical literature by summarizing large bodies of evidence and helping to explain differences among studies on the same question. A systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several primary studies. Because the review process itself (like any other type of research) is subject to bias, a useful review requires clear reporting of information obtained using rigorous methods. Used increasingly to inform medical decision making, plan future research agendas, and establish clinical policy, systematic reviews may strengthen the link between best research evidence and optimal health care.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9054282     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  233 in total

1.  Evidence-based medicine training in internal medicine residency programs a national survey.

Authors:  M L Green
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines.

Authors:  S H Woolf; R Grol; A Hutchinson; M Eccles; J Grimshaw
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-02-20

Review 3.  Update in internal medicine.

Authors:  F López-Jiménez; M Brito; Y W Aude; P Scheinberg; M Kaplan; D A Dixon; N Schneiderman; J F Trejo; L H López-Salazar; E J Ramírez-Barba; R Kalil; C Ortiz; J Goyos; A Buenaño; S Kottiech; G A Lamas
Journal:  Arch Med Res       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.235

4.  Glossary on meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Delgado-Rodríguez
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  A computerized tool for evaluating the effectiveness of preventive interventions.

Authors:  G Daumit; L E Boulware; N R Powe; C S Minkovitz; K D Frick; L A Anderson; G R Janes; R S Lawrence
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.792

Review 6.  Is the promise of randomized control trials ("evidence-based medicine") overstated?

Authors:  Louis R Caplan
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.081

Review 7.  Health programs in faith-based organizations: are they effective?

Authors:  Mark J DeHaven; Irby B Hunter; Laura Wilder; James W Walton; Jarett Berry
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 8.  Quantifying adverse drug events : are systematic reviews the answer?

Authors:  Mahyar Etminan; Bruce Carleton; Paula A Rochon
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 5.606

9.  Diagnostic test systematic reviews: bibliographic search filters ("Clinical Queries") for diagnostic accuracy studies perform well.

Authors:  Monika Kastner; Nancy L Wilczynski; Ann K McKibbon; Amit X Garg; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 10.  Use of emergency observation and assessment wards: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  M W Cooke; J Higgins; P Kidd
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.740

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.