Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Guidelines for reading literature reviews.

A D Oxman¹, G H Guyatt

¹Department of Clinical Epidemiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal De L'Association Medicale Canadienne

|April 15, 1988

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

Abstracts of presentations to the Annual Meetings of the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Canadian Association of General Surgeons Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons: Canadian Surgery Forum, Toronto, Ont., September 6-9, 2007.

Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie·2023

Same author

Key concepts for informed health choices. 3.1: evidence should be relevant.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2022

Same author

Key concepts for informed health choices. 2.1: comparisons of treatments should be fair.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2022

Same author

Key concepts for informed health choices. 2.3: descriptions of effects should clearly reflect the size of the effects.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2022

Same author

Key concepts for informed health choices. 2.4: descriptions of effects should reflect the risk of being misled by the play of chance.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2022

Same author

Key concepts for informed health choices. 3.2: expected advantages should outweigh expected disadvantages.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2022

This study proposes guidelines to assess the scientific quality of medical literature reviews. Following these standards ensures clinicians can trust review validity and efficiently use their reading time.

Area of Science:

Medical Literature Analysis
Evidence-Based Medicine

Background:

The increasing volume of medical literature necessitates efficient review strategies.
Literature reviews are crucial for clinicians but can be misleading if not scientifically rigorous.

Purpose of the Study:

To propose guidelines for assessing the scientific quality of literature reviews.
To help clinicians identify high-quality reviews and evaluate their conclusions.

Main Methods:

Developing criteria for evaluating review quality.
Focusing on key components: question definition, search strategy, study selection/assessment, and data synthesis.
Outlining methods for reaching appropriate conclusions.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

Proposed guidelines provide a framework for critical appraisal of literature reviews.

These guidelines address the definition of the review question.

They cover the comprehensiveness of the search strategy, study selection, and data synthesis methods.

Conclusions:

Adherence to proposed guidelines enhances the reliability of literature reviews.
Clinicians can use these guidelines to discern valid conclusions and optimize information consumption.
Implementing these standards supports evidence-based practice by ensuring review quality.