All health researchers should begin their training by preparing at least one systematic review

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Volumn 109, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 264-268

  Mahtani, Kamal R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CAREER; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DATA ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PATIENT SAFETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); WASTE; EDUCATION; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; TEACHING; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; STATE MEDICINE; TEACHING; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84977554439     PISSN: 01410768     EISSN: 17581095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0141076816643954     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. D.L.SackettW.M.C.RosenbergJ.A.M.GrayR.B.HaynesW.S.Richardson. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ1996; 312: 71–72.
2. Egger M, Smith GD and Altman D. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2008
3. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Systematic Reviews Knowledge to Support Evidence-Informed Health and Social Care. See www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/about-NIHR/NIHR-Publications/NIHR-Systematic-Reviews-Infrastructure.pdf (last checked 24 March 2016)
4. Cochrane Trusted evidence. Informed Decisions. Better Health. See www.cochrane.org/ (last checked 28 January 2016)
5. Roberts D and Dalziel SR. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (3): Art. No.: CD004454. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004454.pub2
6. R.GilbertG.SalantiM.HardenS.See. Infant sleeping position and the sudden infant death syndrome: systematic review of observational studies and historical review of recommendations from 1940 to 2002. Int J Epidemiol2005; 34: 874–887.
7. Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I and Glasziou P. Testing Treatments. See www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK66204/ (2011, last checked 30 January 2016)
8. D.Cohen. Rosiglitazone: what went wrong?BMJ2010; 341: c4848–c4848.
9. I.ChalmersP.Glasziou. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet2009; 374: 86–89.
10. M.R.MacleodS.MichieI.RobertsU.DirnaglI.ChalmersJ.P.A.Ioannidis. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet2014; 383: 101–104.
11. I.ChalmersM.B.BrackenB.DjulbegovicS.GarattiniJ.GrantA.M.Gülmezoglu. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet2014; 383: 156–165.
12. J.LauC.H.SchmidT.C.Chalmers. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol1995; 48: 45–57.
13. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. See http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_11/11_3_2_1_forest_plots_in_revman.htm (last checked 29 January 2016)
14. E.M.AntmanJ.LauB.KupelnickF.MostellerT.C.Chalmers. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA1992; 268: 240–248.
15. P.JüniL.NarteyS.ReichenbachR.SterchiP.A.DieppeM.Egger. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet2004; 364: 2021–2029.
16. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research design service London. Conducting a Brief Systematic Style Review in Support of a Primary Research Application. See www.rds-london.nihr.ac.uk/RDSLondon/media/RDSContent/files/PDFs/Systematic-Reviews-in-Support-of-Primary-Research-Applications.pdf (last checked 24 March 2016)
17. S.BhurkeA.CookA.TallantA.YoungE.WilliamsJ.Raftery. Using systematic reviews to inform NIHR HTA trial planning and design: a retrospective cohort. BMC Med Res Methodol2015; 15: 1–1.
18. M.ClarkeS.HopewellI.Chalmers. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet2010; 376: 20–21.
19. PROSPERO – International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. See http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (last checked 19 March 2016)
20. L.TurnerL.ShamseerD.G.AltmanK.F.SchulzD.Moher. Does use of the CONSORT statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals?A Cochrane Review Syst Rev2012; 1: 60–60.