Many reviews are systematic but some are more transparent and completely reported than others

PLoS Medicine

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 399-400

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COCHRANE LIBRARY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; HUMAN; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 33947701090     PISSN: 15491277     EISSN: 15491676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040147     Document Type: Editorial

References (2)

1. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4(3): e78. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078
2. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, et al. (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses. Lancet 354: 1896-1900.