Discordant Systematic Reviews: Which to Believe?
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.
Systematic reviews are becoming prominent tools to guide health care decisions. As the number of published systematic reviews increases, it is common to find more than 1 systematic review addressing the same or a very similar therapeutic question. Despite the promise for systematic reviews to resolve conflicting results of primary studies, conflicts among reviews are now emerging. Such conflict...
متن کاملAn Introduction to Living Systematic Reviews
سخن سردبیر Editorial مجله دانشگاه علوم پزشکی رفسنجان دوره 20، اردیبهشت 1400، 146-145 درآمدی بر مرورهای نظام‌مند زنده An Introduction to Living Systematic Reviews محسن رضائیان[1] M. Rezaeian تا کنون در سخنان سردبیری مجله دانشگاه، درباره انواع مقالات مروری، مطالب گوناگونی را به رشته تحریر در آورده‌ایم. هدف از نگارش این مقالات، آشنا ساختن خوانندگان و نویسندگان فرهیخته م...
متن کاملWhich expert should I believe?
As a reader of this journal you are probably a professional scientist with an interest in communicat ing the importance of what you do to the world at large. We share that interest, and advertise to journal ists the work we publish that we feel most likely to be of general interest, via press releases on the EurekAlert! website. This works very well, and papers in Current Biology are frequent...
متن کاملWhich resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review
BACKGROUND Systematic reviewers seek to comprehensively search for relevant studies and summarize these to present the most valid estimate of intervention effectiveness. The more resources searched, the higher the yield, and thus time and costs required to conduct a systematic review. While there is an abundance of evidence to suggest how extensive a search for randomized controlled trials (RCT...
متن کاملWorldwide inequality in production of systematic reviews
Background: Investment in science is vital for the development and well-being of societies. This study aims to assess the scientific productivity of countries by quantifying their publication of systematic reviews taking the gross national income per capita (GNIPC) into account. Methods: Medline and ISI Web of Science were searched for systematic reviews published between 1st January 2006 an...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Global Spine Journal
سال: 2020
ISSN: 2192-5682,2192-5690
DOI: 10.1177/2192568219899945