Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Reading systematic reviews.

Hedley Peach1

  • 1University of Melbourne, Ballarat Health Services, Victoria.

Australian Family Physician
|August 23, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Critically appraising systematic reviews is essential due to current unreliability. This guide helps evaluate reviews for better clinical decision-making and understanding research quality.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Australia's Vietnam veterans--a review.

Australian family physician·2006
Same author

Should Australia's hospitals be reviewing the use of research in patient care by nurses, managers and allied health professionals?--A systematic review of recent evidence.

Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association·2004
Same author

Comparison of a general practice and hospital placement on medical students' insights into rural practice.

Medical teacher·2001
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Evidence-based medicine
  • Clinical research methodology

Background:

  • Many systematic reviews lack reliability, clear reporting, or clinical utility.
  • Critical appraisal of systematic reviews is crucial for informed decision-making.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To offer a structured approach for appraising systematic reviews.
  • To adapt a validated appraisal guide for various study types (controlled trials, prognostic, diagnostic).
  • To guide selection between conflicting reviews and assess the utility of high-quality reviews.

Main Methods:

  • Utilizing a validated general appraisal guide.
  • Amending the guide for diverse systematic review types.
  • Developing criteria for choosing between discordant reviews.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • A logical framework for systematic review appraisal is presented.
  • The guide is adaptable for different study designs.
  • Methods for assessing review usefulness and discordance are outlined.

Conclusions:

  • Systematic review guidelines aim to enhance quality and utility.
  • Critical appraisal remains vital, especially for reviews outside established repositories like the Cochrane Library.