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

Checklists for review articles

A D Oxman1

  • 1Department of Clinical Epidemiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)
|September 10, 1994
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This guide outlines the systematic process for preparing literature reviews, emphasizing critical appraisal and synthesis of studies. Checklists and collaborative efforts enhance review quality and appropriate use in decision-making.

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

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
Same author

Key concepts for informed health choices. 2.2: reviews of the effects of treatments should be fair.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2022
Same journal

UK alcohol deaths: we know that minimum unit pricing works.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same journal

Ebola control is weakened by mistrust and cultural insensitivity.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same journal

Open letter to the Health and Safety Executive on work related suicides.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same journal

The hand surgeon who sailed in the wake of Captain Cook.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same journal

Cannibalism: scientists say it's bad for your health.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same journal

Measurement of ethnicity in clinical trials: Delphi survey and consensus statement.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Systematic reviews
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Scientific literature evaluation

Background:

  • Review preparation involves critical decisions regarding focus, study selection, and appraisal.
  • Information synthesis and conclusion drawing are key components of a comprehensive review.
  • Ensuring the quality of published reviews is crucial for reliable decision-making.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To delineate the essential steps in preparing a high-quality literature review.
  • To highlight the importance of critical appraisal and information synthesis.
  • To emphasize the roles of various stakeholders in improving review quality.

Main Methods:

  • Defining the review's focus.
  • Identifying, selecting, and critically appraising relevant studies.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Synthesizing collected information to draw conclusions.

    • Main Results:

    • Systematic approaches and checklists can mitigate errors in review preparation.
    • Collaborative efforts among reviewers, editors, experts, and users improve review quality.
    • Appraising the validity of review articles is essential for both producers and consumers of research.

    Conclusions:

    • Effective review preparation requires meticulous attention to detail and systematic methodology.
    • Quality improvement in scientific reviews is a shared responsibility.
    • Valid appraisal of review articles ensures their appropriate application in practice and policy.