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

A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews

A R Jadad1, D J Cook, G P Browman

  • 1Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Jadada@fhs.mcmaster.ca

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal De L'Association Medicale Canadienne
|May 15, 1997
PubMed
Summary

Conflicting systematic reviews complicate healthcare decisions. This study offers a decision algorithm to help clinicians and patients choose the most reliable review when evidence differs.

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

Fall Detection in Smart Home Environments Using UWB Sensors and Unsupervised Change Detection.

Journal of reliable intelligent environments·2025
Same author

Brain Charts for the Rhesus Macaque Lifespan.

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology·2024
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, London, Ont., Sept. 19 to 22, 2002.

Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie·2023
Same author

The Association between Frailty and Short-Term Outcomes in an Intensive Care Unit Rehabilitation Trial: An Exploratory Analysis.

The Journal of frailty & aging·2020
Same author

Protocol adherence for continuously titrated interventions in randomized trials: an overview of the current methodology and case study.

BMC medical research methodology·2017
Same author

The monitoring of activity at home after total hip arthroplasty.

The bone & joint journal·2016

Area of Science:

  • Health research methodology
  • Evidence-based practice

Background:

  • Systematic reviews are crucial for healthcare decisions.
  • Increasing numbers of systematic reviews address similar questions.
  • Conflicts between systematic reviews are emerging, creating decision-making challenges.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To address the growing problem of conflicting systematic reviews.
  • To provide a tool for decision-makers to navigate discordant review findings.

Main Methods:

  • Development of a decision algorithm.
  • The algorithm is designed as an adjunct tool for selecting among conflicting reviews.

Main Results:

  • The study introduces a novel decision algorithm.

Related Experiment Videos

  • This tool aims to assist in choosing the most appropriate systematic review when discrepancies exist.

    • Conclusions:

    • A decision algorithm can aid stakeholders in managing conflicting systematic review evidence.
    • Facilitating informed choices among alternative interventions despite review discordance.