Quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE)

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 671-678

  Petticrew, Mark ^a   Song, Fujian ^a   Wilson, Paul ^a   Wright, Kath ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Databases; Evidence based health; Evidence based medicine; Meta analysis; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

DATA BASE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; REVIEW;

EID: 0033396997     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0266462399015469     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Barnes, D. E., & Bero, L. A. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA, 1998, 279, 1566-70.
2. Bero, L. A., & Jadad, A. R. How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1997, 127, 37-42.
3. Cochrane Library. Available from Update Software, Summertown, Oxford.
4. Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1997, 126, 376-80.
5. Davidson, R. A. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1986, 1, 155-58.
6. Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. Bias in location and selection of studies. British Medical Journal, 1998, 316, 61-66.
7. Glanville, J., Haines, M., & Auston, I. Finding information on clinical effectiveness. British Medical Journal, 1998, 317, 200-03.
8. Haines, A., & Jones, R. Implementing findings of research. British Medical Journal, 1994, 308, 1488-92.
9. Haynes, B., & Haines, A. Getting research findings into practice: Barriers and bridges to evidence based clinical practice. British Medical Journal, 1998, 317, 273-76.
10. Jadad, A. R., Cook, D. J., Jones, A., et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1997, 280, 278-80.
11. Jadad, A. R., & McQuay, H. J. Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: A systematic qualitative review of their methodology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1996, 49, 235-43.
12. Kleijnen, J., & Knipschild, P. A. Review articles and publication bias. Arzneimittelforschung, 1992, 42, 587-91.
13. Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., et al. Does quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet, 1998, 352, 609-13.
14. Oxman, A. D. Checklists for review articles. British Medical Journal, 1994, 309, 648-51.
15. Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R. J., & Altman, D. G. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA, 1995, 273, 408-12.
16. Straus, S. E., & Sackett, D. L. Using research findings in clinical practice. British Medical Journal, 1998, 317, 339-42.
17. Thompson, S. G. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. British Medical Journal, 1994, 309, 1351-55.