Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
6 Systematic reviews
| Content Provider | Scilit |
|---|---|
| Author | Rawlins, Michael |
| Copyright Year | 2011 |
| Description | Until about 20 years ago reviews of the biomedical literature were generally ad hoc activities. A reviewer would typically search out a few of the relevant articles (o en from a personal collection of reprints), supplement these articles with some of those quoted in the reference list of the published papers, and produce a review. It was invariably idiosyncratic and incomplete; and it was an unreliable basis for drawing general conclusions. It is therefore hardly surprising that an analysis of 40 reviews published in the mid-1980s found major deciencies.1 Only one described the methods for identifying, selecting and validating the information included in the review; and just three of them attempted a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of the results. Book Name: Therapeutics, Evidence and Decision-Making |
| Related Links | https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2012-0-10428-X&isbn=9780429102820&doi=10.1201/b13485-12&format=pdf |
| Ending Page | 74 |
| Page Count | 15 |
| Starting Page | 60 |
| DOI | 10.1201/b13485-12 |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited |
| Publisher Date | 2011-07-29 |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Subject Keyword | Book Name: Therapeutics, Evidence and Decision-making Emergency Medicine Hoc Incomplete Supplement Attempted Surprising Quoted Idiosyncratic Reprints Deciencies.1 |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Chapter |
