Talk:Systematic review: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Joe Quick
m (New page: {{subpages}})
 
imported>Pierre-Alain Gouanvic
(critique)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
==To do==
add:
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001 Fall;17(4):457-66.
Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions?
Ezzo J, Bausell B, Moerman DE, Berman B, Hadhazy V.
University of Maryland, USA.
...
CONCLUSIONS: The number of reviews indicating that the modern biomedical interventions show either no effect or insufficient evidence is surprisingly high. Interrater disagreements suggest a surprising degree of subjective interpretation involved in systematic reviews. Where patterns of disagreement emerged between authors and readers, authors tended to be more optimistic in their conclusions than the readers. Policy implications are discussed.
{{cite journal |author=Ezzo J, Bausell B, Moerman DE, Berman B, Hadhazy V |title=Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions? |journal=Int J Technol Assess Health Care |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=457–66 |year=2001 |pmid=11758290 |doi= |url=}}
[[User:Pierre-Alain Gouanvic|Pierre-Alain Gouanvic]] 00:01, 15 September 2008 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 23:01, 14 September 2008

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Literature review focused on a single question that tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence relevant to that question. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Health Sciences [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  American English

To do

add:

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001 Fall;17(4):457-66.

Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions?

Ezzo J, Bausell B, Moerman DE, Berman B, Hadhazy V. University of Maryland, USA.

... CONCLUSIONS: The number of reviews indicating that the modern biomedical interventions show either no effect or insufficient evidence is surprisingly high. Interrater disagreements suggest a surprising degree of subjective interpretation involved in systematic reviews. Where patterns of disagreement emerged between authors and readers, authors tended to be more optimistic in their conclusions than the readers. Policy implications are discussed.

Ezzo J, Bausell B, Moerman DE, Berman B, Hadhazy V (2001). "Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions?". Int J Technol Assess Health Care 17 (4): 457–66. PMID 11758290. [e]


Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 00:01, 15 September 2008 (CDT)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Systematic_review&oldid=346937"