Evaluation of systematic reviews of treatment or prevention interventions

Evidence-Based Nursing

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 100-104

  Ciliska, Donna ^a   Cullum, Nicky ^b   Marks, Susan ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE; THERAPY;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE; REVIEW LITERATURE; THERAPEUTICS;

EID: 0035489552     PISSN: 13676539     EISSN: 14689618     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/ebn.4.4.100     Document Type: Note

References (11)

1. Cullum N. Evaluation of studies of treatment or prevention interventions [editorial]. Evidence-Based Nursing 2000;3:100-2.
2. Cullum N. Evaluation of studies of treatment or prevention interventions. Part 2: applying the results of studies to your patients [editorial]. Evidence-Based Nursing 2001;4:7-8.
3. Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. Second edition. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
4. Glazener CMA, Evans JHC. Alarm interventions for nocturnal enuresis in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(1):CD002911.
5. Roberts J,DiCenso A. Identifying the best research design to fit the question. Part I: quantitative designs [editorial]. Evidence-Based Nursing 1999;2:4-6.
6. Egger M, Smith G. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 1998;316:61-6.
7. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998;317:1185-90.
8. Sheldon T. Statistics for evidence-based nursing [editorial]. Evidence-Based Nursing 2000;3:4-6.
9. Sheldon T. Estimating treatment effects: real or the result of chance? [editorial]. Evidence-Based Nursing 2000;3:36-9.
10. DiCenso A. Clinically useful measures of the effects of treatment [editorial]. Evidence-Based Nursing 2001;4:36-9.
11. Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses-sometimes informative, usually misleading. BMJ 1999;318:1548-51.