Warning: Undefined variable $zfal in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\mlpefetch.php on line 525
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\mlpefetch.php on line 525
Warning: Undefined variable $sterm in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\mlpefetch.php on line 530
Warning: Undefined variable $sterm in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\mlpefetch.php on line 531
 
English Wikipedia
Nephropedia Template TP (
Twit Text
DeepDyve
Pubget Overpricing |  
lüll
The medical review article revisited: has the science improved?McAlister FA; Clark HD; van Walraven C; Straus SE; Lawson FM; Moher D; Mulrow CDAnn Intern Med 1999[Dec]; 131 (12): 947-51BACKGROUND: The validity of a review depends on its methodologic quality. OBJECTIVE: To determine the methodologic quality of recently published review articles. DESIGN: Critical appraisal. SETTING: All reviews of clinical topics published in six general medical journals in 1996. MEASUREMENTS: Explicit criteria that have been published and validated were used. RESULTS: Of 158 review articles, only 2 satisfied all 10 methodologic criteria (median number of criteria satisfied, 1). Less than a quarter of the articles described how evidence was identified, evaluated, or integrated; 34% addressed a focused clinical question; and 39% identified gaps in existing knowledge. Of the 111 reviews that made treatment recommendations, 48% provided an estimate of the magnitude of potential benefits (and 34%, the potential adverse effects) of the treatment options, 45% cited randomized clinical trials to support their recommendations, and only 6% made any reference to costs. CONCLUSIONS: The methodologic quality of clinical review articles is highly variable, and many of these articles do not specify systematic methods.|*Review Literature as Topic[MESH]|Bibliometrics[MESH]|Humans[MESH]|Periodicals as Topic/*standards[MESH]|Research Design[MESH]|Research/standards[MESH] |
