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

How to write a systematic review.

Rick W Wright1, Richard A Brand, Warren Dunn

  • 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Barnes-Jewish Hospital at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA. wrightr@wudosis.wustl.edu

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
|February 7, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

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

Standardized Knee Meniscus MRI Reporting: An Interdisciplinary Delphi Consensus.

Radiology·2026
Same author

Standardized MRI nomenclature for knee meniscal lesions: SSR consensus panel report.

Skeletal radiology·2026
Same author

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient Pain Catastrophizing and Resiliency on Patient Reported Outcomes in Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement.

Sports medicine and arthroscopy review·2026
Same author

Having a Revision ACL Reconstruction Is Worse Than Tearing the Contralateral ACL and Undergoing Reconstruction: A MOON Cohort Study.

The American journal of sports medicine·2026
Same author

Prevalence of Postoperative Knee Pain After ACL Reconstruction at 2, 6, and 10 Years of Follow-up: Data From the MOON Group.

The American journal of sports medicine·2026
Same author

Where Sex Matters for Perioperative and Postoperative Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcomes: A Systematic Review of MOON Literature.

The American journal of sports medicine·2026
Same journal

Impact Microindentation Evaluates Bone Strength, Bone Quality, and Fracture Susceptibility Across Skeletal Sites: A Cadaver Study.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same journal

What Is the Effect of Robot Reduction in Displaced Pelvic Fractures? A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same journal

CORR Insights®: Acute or Delayed TKA for Tibial Plateau Fracture? An Observational Study From the Swedish Arthroplasty Register.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same journal

Reply to the Letter to the Editor: Guest Editorial: Recalling a Recall.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same journal

Radial Head Fractures Cluster in the Anterolateral and Anteromedial Quadrants and Do Not Correlate With Coronoid Fracture Types.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same journal

Reduced Cerebellar Activation With Eyes Closed Is Associated With Delayed Peroneal Reaction Time in Patients With Chronic Ankle Instability.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
See all related articles

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) integrates research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient needs. Systematic reviews, a key EBM component, can be performed without formal training and offer a rigorous alternative to traditional narrative reviews.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Research Methodology
  • Clinical Decision Making
  • Information Synthesis

Background:

  • Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is increasingly integral to clinical practice.
  • The hierarchy of evidence places meta-analyses and systematic reviews at the highest level.
  • Traditional expert opinion narrative reviews are being superseded by more rigorous methods.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To describe a standardized method for conducting systematic reviews.
  • To demonstrate that systematic reviews can be performed without specialized formal training.
  • To position systematic reviews as a superior alternative to narrative reviews for synthesizing current medical concepts.

Main Methods:

  • Following a standardized protocol for systematic review execution.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Utilizing readily available research evidence.
  • Synthesizing findings without requiring formal training in systematic review methodology.

    • Main Results:

    • A systematic approach allows for the creation of high-level evidence summaries.
    • The described methods are accessible to clinicians without prior formal training in systematic reviews.
    • Systematic reviews provide a robust foundation for clinical decision-making.

    Conclusions:

    • Systematic reviews offer a reproducible and rigorous method for evidence synthesis.
    • Clinicians can effectively conduct systematic reviews to inform practice.
    • This approach enhances the quality of medical literature reviews and clinical decision-making.