The usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviews
Keeping up to date with the best evidence on treatment interventions is an essential part of clinical practice, but it can seem an overwhelming task for busy clinicians. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a useful and convenient summary of knowledge and form an essential part of an evidenc...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2016
|
| _version_ | 1797056337679482880 |
|---|---|
| author | Smith, K Cipriani, A Geddes, J |
| author_facet | Smith, K Cipriani, A Geddes, J |
| author_sort | Smith, K |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Keeping up to date with the best evidence on treatment interventions is an essential part of clinical practice, but it can seem an overwhelming task for busy clinicians. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a useful and convenient summary of knowledge and form an essential part of an evidence-based approach to clinical practice. However, these reviews vary in methodology and therefore in the quality of the recommendations they provide. Clinicians need to feel confident in their skills of critical appraisal, so that they can assess the relative merits of systematic reviews. In this article we discuss the strengths and limitations of different types of evidence synthesis to enable the reader to feel more confident in assessing the scientific information to use in clinical practice. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T19:21:58Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:1a6896a4-bc14-4ebc-aabb-7f45f2deea19 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T19:21:58Z |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:1a6896a4-bc14-4ebc-aabb-7f45f2deea192022-03-26T10:54:40ZThe usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviewsJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:1a6896a4-bc14-4ebc-aabb-7f45f2deea19Symplectic Elements at OxfordCambridge University Press2016Smith, KCipriani, AGeddes, JKeeping up to date with the best evidence on treatment interventions is an essential part of clinical practice, but it can seem an overwhelming task for busy clinicians. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a useful and convenient summary of knowledge and form an essential part of an evidence-based approach to clinical practice. However, these reviews vary in methodology and therefore in the quality of the recommendations they provide. Clinicians need to feel confident in their skills of critical appraisal, so that they can assess the relative merits of systematic reviews. In this article we discuss the strengths and limitations of different types of evidence synthesis to enable the reader to feel more confident in assessing the scientific information to use in clinical practice. |
| spellingShingle | Smith, K Cipriani, A Geddes, J The usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviews |
| title | The usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviews |
| title_full | The usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviews |
| title_fullStr | The usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviews |
| title_full_unstemmed | The usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviews |
| title_short | The usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviews |
| title_sort | usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviews |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT smithk theusefulnessandinterpretationofsystematicreviews AT cipriania theusefulnessandinterpretationofsystematicreviews AT geddesj theusefulnessandinterpretationofsystematicreviews AT smithk usefulnessandinterpretationofsystematicreviews AT cipriania usefulnessandinterpretationofsystematicreviews AT geddesj usefulnessandinterpretationofsystematicreviews |