Study of the reliability and validity of a systematic literature review on ischemic heart disease;Estudio de la reproducibilidad y validez de una revisión sistemática sobre cardiopatía isquémica

Medicina Clinica

Volumn 112, Issue SUPPL. 1, 1999, Pages 74-78

  Gómez Gras, Ernesto ^d   De Villar Conde, Ernesto ^a,c   Lacalle Remigio, Juan Ramón ^d   Briones Pérez De la Blanca, Eduardo ^b   Reyes Domínguez, Antonio ^a   Álvarez Gil, Reyes ^d   Pérez Lozano, María José ^a   Marín León, Ignacio ^a  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO DE VALME   (Spain)

^b Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment Spain   (Spain)

^c Hospital El Tomillar   (Spain)

^d Hospital El Tomillar ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGINA PECTORIS; ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEART MUSCLE ISCHEMIA; HUMAN; LITERATURE; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPAIN; STANDARD;

ANGINA PECTORIS; BIBLIOGRAPHY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MEDLINE; MYOCARDIAL ISCHEMIA; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE; SPAIN;

EID: 0039034270     PISSN: 00257753     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Khan K, Daya S, Jaddad AR. The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 661-666.
2. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. Br Med J 1994; 309: 597-599.
3. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. Peer review practice of psychological journals. The fate of published articles submitted again. Behav Brain Sci 1982; 5: 187-255.
4. Mahoney MJ. Publications prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory biases in the peer review system. Cognit Ther Res 1977; 1: 161-175.
5. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). Br Med J 1997;315: 2.423-246.
6. 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: 1.367-1.371.
7. Milner R, Chambers L. Assessing the scientific quality of review articles. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1993; 47: 169-170.
8. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106: 485-488.
9. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic review: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 376-380.
10. Marin-Léon I, Gómez-Gras E, Villar-Conde E, Briones-Pérez de la Blanca E. Fundamento de las evidencias cientificas: La revisión bibliográfica (cap. Ib). En: Berra de Unamuno A, Marín-Léon I, Álvarez Gil R, editores. Metodología de consenso de expertos. Granada: Escuela Andaluza de Salud Publica, Serie de Monografia, 1996; 14; 25-49.
11. Oxman AD. Checklist for review articles. Br Med J 1994; 309: 648-641.
12. Justice AC, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, Goodman SN. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality? JAMA 1994; 272: 117-119.
13. Gol Freixa JM. Bienvenidos a la medicina basada en la evidencia. JAMA (ed. esp.) 1997; (número especial): 5-14.
14. Pérez MJ, en nombre del grupo GRECA. Estudio de la calidad de la asistencia a la cardiopartia isquémica en Sevilla (ECACIS). Gac Sanit 1993; 7 (Supl): 16-17.
15. Woolf SH, Battista RN, Anderson GM, Logan AG, Wang AG, and The Canadian Task Force On The Periodic Health Examination. Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive maneuvers: analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 891-905.
16. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Contrall Clin Trial 1981; 2: 31-49.
17. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987; 6: 411-423.
18. a ed.). Nueva York: Wiley and Sons, 1981; 112-136.
19. a ed.). Nueva York: Wiley and Sons, 1981: 211-236.
20. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. En busca de las mejores evidencias. En: Medicina basada en la evidencia. Cómo ensenar y ejercer la MBE. Madrid: Churchill Livingstone, 1997; 33-67.
21. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publications of research results. JAMA 1992; 267: 374-378.
22. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefevbre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. Br Med J 1994; 309: 1.286-1.291.
23. López Arrieta JM, Qizilbash N. La medicina basada en pruebas: revisiones sistemáticas. La Colaboración Cochrane. Med Clin (Barc) 1996; 107: 581-585.
24. Dickersin K, Hewitt P, Mutch L, Chalmers I, Chalmers TC. Comparison of Medline searching with a perinatal trials database. Contoll Clin Trials 1985; 6: 306-317.
25. Bernstein F. The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver diseases from the medical literature: manual versus Medlars searches. Contrall Clin Trials 198; 9: 23-31.
26. Ohlssen A. Treatments of preterm premature rupture of the membranes: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 890-906.
27. Gotzsche PC, Lange B. Comparison of search strategies for recalling double-blind trials for Medline. Dan Med Bull 1991; 38: 476-478.
28. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). Br Med J 1997; 315: 672-675.
29. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. User's guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. JAMA 1994; 271: 59-63.
30. Ingelfinger FJ. Peer review in biomedical publications. Am J Med 1974; 56: 686-692.
31. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editor's subjective quality rating of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998; 280: 229-231.
32. Oxman A, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, Hutchison BG, Milner R et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 91-98.