Why would physicians undervalue reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration?

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 61, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 419-421

  Badgett, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; KNOWLEDGE BASE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 41249089381     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.022     Document Type: Editorial

References (17)

1. Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M., and Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315 7109 (1997) 629-634
2. Jadad A.R., Cook D.J., Jones A., Klassen T.P., 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 280 (1998) 278-280
3. Olsen O., Middleton P., Ezzo J., Gotzsche P.C., Hadhazy V., Herxheimer A., et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ 323 7317 (2001) 829-832
4. Jorgensen A.W., Hilden J., and Gotzsche P.C. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333 7572 (2006) 782
5. Delaney A., Bagshaw S.M., Ferland A., Laupland K., Manns B., and Doig C. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal. Crit Care Med 35 (2007) 589-594
6. Trikalinos N.A., Evangelou E., and Ioannidis J.P.A. Falsfied papers in high-impact journals are slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. J Clin Epidemiol 61 (2008) 464-470
7. McKibbon K.A., Wilczynski N.L., and Haynes R.B. What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals?. BMC Med 2 (2004) 33
8. Montori V.M., Wilczynski N.L., Morgan D., Haynes R.B., and Team H. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 330 7482 (2005) 68
9. Fenton S.H., and Badgett R.G. A comparison of primary care information content in UpToDate and the National Guideline Clearinghouse. J Med Libr Assoc 95 (2007) 255-259
10. Sackett D.L., and Straus S.E. Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds: the "evidence cart". JAMA 280 (1998) 1336-1338
11. Laupacis A., and Straus S. Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor. Ann Intern Med 127 4 (2007) 273
12. Straus S.E., Richardson W.S., Glasziou P., and Haynes R.B. Therapy. Evidence based medicine. 3rd Edition (2005), Churchill Livingstone, Oxford p. 148
13. Ely J.W., Osheroff J.A., Chambliss M.L., Ebell M.H., and Rosenbaum M.E. Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions. J Am Med Inform Assoc 12 (2005) 217-224
14. Gorman P.N., and Helfand M. Information seeking in primary care: how physicians choose which clinical questions to pursue and which to leave unanswered. Med Decis Making 15 2 (1995) 113-119
15. Mayor S. Row over breast cancer screening shows that scientists bring "some subjectivity into their work". BMJ 323 7319 (2001) 956
16. Goodman S.N. The mammography dilemma: a crisis for evidence-based medicine?. Ann Intern Med 137 5 Part 1 (2002) 363-365
17. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 295 (2006) 90-93