Editorial: systematic reviews: a stamp of approval for the "best available evidence"?

A (nonsystematic) search of the literature through Google Scholar revealed that the term “systematic review” was first used in a medical context in 1855 by Simpson et al:1 “As the papers composing this volume have been published before in some shape or other, many of them years ago, and have received the approval or condemnation of the profession, it would be quite misplaced to enter into any lengthened consideration of their contents, or any formal criticism of their merits. Being released, then, from the necessity of giving anything like a regular or systematic review of this ponderous volume, we feel at liberty to follow the bent of our caprice, and to fix upon articles here and there, in a desultory manner, through the book, and to make such comments and extracts as seem worthy of being submitted to our readers.” In other words, although the authors understood the concept of a systematic review, they felt that previous peer review and professional acceptance of an article took precedence over the process of structured critique and synthesis. The last decade of the previous century was characterized by a surge of initiatives around the concept of “best available evidence”. In 1992, the Cochrane Collaboration was formed in response to Archie Cochrane’s call to use evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This was followed by the formation of the specialized Cochrane Oral Health Group in 1994, with the aim of producing systematic reviews which primarily include all RCTs of oral health. Since the pyramid of evidence was developed by Sackett et al2 in 1996, it is widely accepted that articles designed as systematic reviews are the epitome of highSorin T. Teich Systematic reviews: A stamp of approval for the “best available evidence”?