The medical review article revisited: Has the science improved?

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 131, Issue 12, 1999, Pages 947-951

  McAlister, Finlay A ^a,b   Clark, Heather D ^c   Van Walraven, Carl ^c   Straus, Sharon E ^d   Lawson, Fiona M E ^b   Moher, David ^e   Mulrow, Cynthia D ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^d MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^f SOUTH TEXAS VETERANS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 0033593076     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-131-12-199912210-00007     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. McAlister FA, Graham I, Karr GW, Laupads A. Evidence based medicine and the practicing clinician. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:236-42.
2. Haynes RB. Clinical review articles. BMJ. 1992;304:330-1.
3. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992, 268:240-8.
4. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485-8.
5. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1367-71.
6. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ. 1988;138:697-703.
7. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271-8.
8. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, Hutchison BG, Milner RA, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;4491-8.
9. Science Citation Index. v. 26. In: Journal Citation Reports, 1994. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, 1995.
10. Haynes RB. Where's the meat in clinical journals? [Editorial] ACP Journal Club. 1993;119:A22-3.
11. Felson DT. Bias in meta-analytic research. J Cli Epidemiol. 1992;45:885-92.
12. Bramwell VH, Williams CJ. Do authors of review articles use systematic methods to identify, assess and synthesize information? Ann Oncol. 1997;8: 1185-95.
13. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis an update. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996;63:216-24.
14. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA. 1998;280:278-80.
15. Liberati A, Himel HN, Chalmers TC. A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:942-51.
16. Cooper HM, Rosenthal R. Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull. 1980;87:442-9.
17. Cook DJ, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH, Heyland DK, Griffith LE, Buckingham L. et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses. JAMA. 1996;275:308-14.
18. Naylor CD. Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet. 1995;345:840-2.
19. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does the quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-13.
20. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-12.