Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

被引:0
作者
Kat Kolaski
Lynne Romeiser Logan
John P. A. Ioannidis
机构
[1] Wake Forest School of Medicine,Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pediatrics, and Neurology
[2] SUNY Upstate Medical University,Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
[3] Stanford University School of Medicine,Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, and Meta
来源
Systematic Reviews | / 12卷
关键词
Certainty of evidence; Critical appraisal; Methodological quality; Risk of bias; Systematic review;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Informant-based screening tools for dementia: an overview of systematic reviews
    Taylor-Rowan, Martin
    Nafisi, Sara
    Owen, Rhiannon
    Duffy, Robyn
    Patel, Amit
    Burton, Jennifer K.
    Quinn, Terence J.
    PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 53 (02) : 580 - 589
  • [42] Systematic mixed-methods reviews are not ready to be assessed with the available tools
    Bouchard, Karine
    Dubuisson, Wilhelm
    Simard, Jacques
    Dorval, Michel
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (08) : 926 - 928
  • [43] A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2
    Perry, R.
    Whitmarsh, A.
    Leach, V.
    Davies, P.
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2021, 10 (01)
  • [44] A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2
    R. Perry
    A. Whitmarsh
    V. Leach
    P. Davies
    Systematic Reviews, 10
  • [45] Validated tools to identify common mental disorders in the perinatal period: A systematic review of systematic reviews
    Smith, M. Sambrook
    Cairns, L.
    Pullen, L. S. W.
    Opondo, C.
    Fellmeth, Gracia
    Alderdice, F.
    JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS, 2022, 298 : 634 - 643
  • [46] Nonallergic comorbidities of atopic eczema: an overview of systematic reviews
    Deckert, S.
    Kopkow, C.
    Schmitt, J.
    ALLERGY, 2014, 69 (01) : 37 - 45
  • [47] A systematic review of best practices in teaching ophthalmology to medical students
    Succar, Tony
    Grigg, John
    Beaver, Hilary A.
    Lee, Andrew G.
    SURVEY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2016, 61 (01) : 83 - 94
  • [48] A systematic review on the use of best practices for publishing linked data
    Feitosa, Danila
    Dermeval, Diego
    Avila, Thiago
    Bittencourt, Ig Ibert
    Loscio, Bernadette Farias
    Isotani, Seiji
    ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW, 2018, 42 (01) : 107 - 123
  • [49] Producing systematic reviews of best quality: a prerequisite for evidence-based nephrology
    Fouque, D
    JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY, 1999, 12 (05) : 314 - 317
  • [50] Can we rely on the best trial? A comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews
    Paul P Glasziou
    Sasha Shepperd
    Jon Brassey
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10