Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions

doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7278.98

BMJ 2001;322:98-101 ( 13 January )

Education and debate

Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions

Mark Petticrew, associate director.

MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RZ

m.petticrew@msoc.mrc.gla.ac.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Systematic literature reviews are widely used as an aid to evidence based decision making. For example, reviews of randomisedcontrolled trials are regularly used to answer questions aboutthe effectiveness of healthcare interventions. The high profileof systematic reviews as a cornerstone of evidence based medicine,however, has led to several misconceptions about their purposeand methods. Among these is the belief that systematic reviewsare applicable only to randomised controlled trials and that theyare incapable of dealing with other forms of evidence, such asfrom non-randomised studies or qualitativeresearch.

The systematic literature review is a method of locating, appraising, and synthesising evidence. The value of regularly updatedsystematic reviews in the assessment of effectiveness of healthcareinterventions was dramatically illustrated by Antman and colleagues,who showed that review articles failed to mention advances intreatment identified by an updated systematic review.¹

It is nearly a quarter of . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Systematic reviews do not replace good quality studies
BMJ 2001 322: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Moher, D., Tricco, A. C (2008). Issues related to the conduct of systematic reviews: a focus on the nutrition field. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 88: 1191-1199 [Abstract] [Full text]
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis. Organization Studies 29: 393-413 [Abstract]
Braye, S., Preston-Shoot, M. (2007). On Systematic Reviews in Social Work: Observations from Teaching, Learning and Assessment of Law in Social Work Education. Br J Soc Work 37: 313-334 [Abstract] [Full text]
Reider, B. (2007). Announcing a Prize Competition: Reviewing Systematically. Am J Sports Med 35: 187-188 [Full text]
SUTHERLAND, S. E., MATTHEWS, D. C. (2004). Conducting systematic reviews and creating clinical practice guidelines in dentistry: Lessons learned. Journal of the American Dental Association 135: 747-753 [Abstract] [Full text]
Hearnshaw, H M, Harker, R M, Cheater, F M, Baker, R H, Grimshaw, G M (2003). Are audits wasting resources by measuring the wrong things? A survey of methods used to select audit review criteria. Qual Saf Health Care 12: 24-28 [Abstract] [Full text]
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., Powell, J. (2002). Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically. Qual Health Res 12: 1284-1299 [Abstract]
Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., Cooper, H. (2002). A Brief History of Research Synthesis. Eval Health Prof 25: 12-37 [Abstract]
Dickersin, K. (2002). Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind?. Int J Epidemiol 31: 6-12 [Full text]
Scalzitti, D. A (2001). Evidence-Based Guidelines: Application to Clinical Practice. ptjournal 81: 1622-1628 [Full text]
McQueen, M. J. (2001). Overview of Evidence-based Medicine: Challenges for Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine. Clin. Chem. 47: 1536-1546 [Abstract] [Full text]