Increasing the incidence and influence of systematic reviews on health policy and practice

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 106, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 11-13

  Chalmers, Iain ^a   Fox, Daniel M ^b  

^a Central Operations Unit   (United Kingdom)

^b Milbank Memorial Fund   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; STANDARDS;

DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84951943478     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: 15410048     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302915     Document Type: Editorial

References (22)

1. Clarke M, Hopewell S. Many reports of randomized trials still don't begin or end with a systematic review of the relevant evidence. J Bahrain Med Assoc. 2013;2: 145-148.
2. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Moher D. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews: 2014 update. Paper presented at: REWARD/EQUATOR Conference; September 28-30, 2015; Edinburgh, UK.
3. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383 (9912):101-104.
4. Fox D. The Convergence of Science and Governance: Research, Health Policy and American States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2010.
5. Vogel JP, Oxman AD, Glenton C, et al. Policymakers' and other stakeholders' perceptions of key considerations for health system decisions and the presentation of evidence to inform those considerations: an international survey. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:19.
6. Fox D. Using systematic reviews in health policy. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context, 3rd Edition. Oxford and London, UK: Wiley Blackwell; In press.
7. Cochrane Library [website]. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org. Accessed October 13, 2015.
8. Campbell Library [website]. Available at: http://www.campbellcollaboration. org. Accessed October 13, 2015.
9. Glasziou P. The role of open access in reducing waste in medical research. PLoS Med. 2014;11(5):e1001651.
10. Chalmers I, Nylenna M. A new network to promote evidence-based research. Lancet. 2014;384:1903-1904.
11. Jefferson T, Deeks J. The use of systematic reviews for editorial peer reviewing: a population approach. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in Health Sciences. London, UK: BMJ Books; 2003:297-308.
12. Clarke M, Hopewell S. Many reports of randomized trials still don't begin or end with a systematic review of the relevant evidence. J Bahrain Med Assoc. 2013;2: 145-148.
13. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Moher D. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews: 2014 update. Paper presented at: REWARD/EQUATOR Conference; September 28-30, 2015; Edinburgh, UK.
14. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383 (9912):101-104.
15. Fox D. The Convergence of Science and Governance: Research, Health Policy and American States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2010.
16. Vogel JP, Oxman AD, Glenton C, et al. Policymakers' and other stakeholders' perceptions of key considerations for health system decisions and the presentation of evidence to inform those considerations: an international survey. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:19.
17. Fox D. Using systematic reviews in health policy. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context, 3rd Edition. Oxford and London, UK: Wiley Blackwell; In press.
18. Cochrane Library [website]. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org. Accessed October 13, 2015.
19. Campbell Library [website]. Available at: http://www.campbellcollaboration. org. Accessed October 13, 2015.
20. Glasziou P. The role of open access in reducing waste in medical research. PLoS Med. 2014;11(5):e1001651.
21. Chalmers I, Nylenna M. A new network to promote evidence-based research. Lancet. 2014;384:1903-1904.
22. Jefferson T, Deeks J. The use of systematic reviews for editorial peer reviewing: a population approach. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in Health Sciences. London, UK: BMJ Books; 2003:297-308.