Healthy Skepticism Library item: 9056

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

The PLoS Medicine Editors.
Many Reviews Are Systematic but Some Are More Transparent and Completely Reported than Others
PLoS Medicine 2007 Mar 27; 4:(3):e147
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040147

Abstract:

“The past decade seen the establishment of the systematic review (SR) as one of the cornerstones of evidence-based medicine. The value of SRs to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers is well established; when done well, they are considered the highest level of evidence for medical decision making. Potentially, they are also a resource for patients seeking to make sense of the relative value of different treatments.

It is important to distinguish SRs from the traditional, narrative reviews also often published in medical journals. A helpful definition of a SR, which also clarifies the difference between an SR and meta-analysis, comes from the Web site (http://www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm) of the Cochrane Collaboration (named after Archie Cochrane, a British medical researcher), an international organization that publishes rigorous SRs evaluating the effectiveness of a wide range of health care interventions. Their definition of a SR is this: “A review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies.”

The increasing number of new SRs being published (currently estimated as being around 2,500 per year [1]) have become an essential part of the biomedical literature. But SRs that are of low quality or out of date have the potential to mislead, and selective publication of SRs that support particular agendas-or failure to publish those with “undesirable” results-could undermine the literature’s reliability in the same way that biased publication of primary research can. How rigorously are these reviews being performed? How consistent are they in reporting their methods and their results? “…

Notes:

Free full text