REVIEWING THE REVIEWS

@article{Ezzo2001REVIEWINGTR,
  title={REVIEWING THE REVIEWS},
  author={Joseph A. Ezzo and Barker Bausell and Daniel E. Moerman and Brian M. Berman and Victoria Hadhazy},
  journal={International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care},
  year={2001},
  volume={17},
  pages={457 - 466}
}
Objectives: The objectives of this paper were: a) to determine what can be learned from conclusions of systematic reviews about the evidence base of medicine; and b) to determine whether two readers draw similar conclusions from the same review, and whether these match the authors' conclusions. Methods: Three methodologists (two per review) rated 160 Cochrane systematic reviews (issue 1, 1998) using pre-established conclusion categories. Disagreements were resolved by discussion to arrive at a… Expand
The quality of evidence for medical interventions does not improve or worsen: a Meta-Epidemiological Study of Cochrane Reviews.
TLDR
The quality of the evidence did not consistently improve or worsen in updated systematic reviews, continuing to suggest that only a minority of outcomes for healthcare interventions are supported by high-quality evidence. Expand
The Value of “Traditional” Reviews in the Era of Systematic Reviewing
  • M. Dijkers
  • Medicine
  • American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation
  • 2009
TLDR
It is argued here that reviews play a number of roles in scientific research and professional practice such as answering specific clinical questions, pooling data, comparing research, synthesizing complementary studies, offering guidance in uncharted fields, and “translating” research between disciplinary traditions. Expand
A Quantitative Study of Bias in Systematic Reviews
TLDR
Unreliable lack of trial inclusion, unreliable methodological assessments, erroneous interpretation of trial data and unreliable dichotomization of equivocal trial data were identified as sources of bias. Expand
The use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in infection control and hospital epidemiology.
TLDR
The essential elements of a systematic review are discussed, a framework for evaluating the quality of such an article is provided, and the results of such reviews should change clinical practice are determined. Expand
Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care.
TLDR
The Cochrane Collaboration needs to include clinical trial protocol summaries with a study design optimized to answer the relevant research questions in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and research. Expand
Mapping of the evidence from systematic reviews of the Cochrane Collaboration for decision-making within physiotherapy.
TLDR
Only one systematic review ("Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease") indicated that the intervention tested could be used with certainty that it would be effective, and most of the systematic reviews recommended further studies with greater rigor of methodological quality. Expand
A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity.
TLDR
A classification of different types of spin that could help authors, editors, and reviewers avoid spin in reports of systematic reviews is identified and ranked according to their severity. Expand
Barriers to the uptake of eye care services in developing countries: A systematic review of interventions
TLDR
The review suggests that eye health education and service provision lessen the barriers to service uptake and increase the uptake of eye care services. Expand
Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists.
TLDR
Authors who published significant results are more likely to believe that a strong association exists compared with methodologists, and researchers are influenced by their own investment in the field, when interpreting a meta-analysis that includes their own study. Expand
Research synthesis in veterinary science: Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
TLDR
Basic concepts in research synthesis are introduced and some of the basic forms of reviews including narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis are discussed to either reduce, or at least acknowledge, the potential for bias. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 33 REFERENCES
Agreement among reviewers of review articles.
TLDR
Assessment of the consistency of an index of the scientific quality of research overviews found it was possible to achieve reasonable to excellent agreement for all of the items in the index, including the overall assessment of scientific quality. Expand
Quality of Cochrane reviews
TLDR
It is suggested that users of any systematic review should assess its reliability and that for a critical assessment of the quality of non-Cochrane reviews users should first look at the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness. Expand
Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology.
TLDR
Ninety percent of the meta-analyses had methodological flaws that could limit their validity and the main deficiencies were lack of information on methods to retrieve and to assess the validity of primary studies and lack of data on the design of the primary studies. Expand
Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.
TLDR
Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in paper-based journals. Expand
Inpatient general medicine is evidence based
TLDR
This study suggests that earlier pessimism over the extent to which evidence-based medicine is already practised is misplaced. Expand
Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards.
TLDR
There was evidence of publication bias in that for both institutional review boards there was an association between results reported to be significant and publication and contrary to popular opinion, publication bias originates primarily with investigators, not journal editors. Expand
PATIENTS' PREFERENCE IN INDOMETHACIN TRIALS: AN OVERVIEW
TLDR
Meta-analysis was used to study patients' preference in 37 crossover trials that compared indomethacin with newer non-steroidal, antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the findings do not support the trend to replace indomethin with newer NSAIDs. Expand
The ethics of ignorance.
  • R. Smith
  • Medicine
  • Journal of medical ethics
  • 1992
TLDR
The scientific base of medicine is weak and it would be better for everybody if that fact were more widely recognised. Expand
Meta-analysis: science or religion?
TLDR
Key among the needs are improved means of identifying trials prior to publication via prospective registration of them and vocabulary and nomenclature for identifying reports of meta-analyses in the published literature. Expand
How Consumers and Policymakers Can Use Systematic Reviews for Decision Making
TLDR
How systematic reviews can help during the decision-making process is discussed, including both patients and healthy persons, their family members, and their advocates, and consumers include both policymakers and consumers. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
...