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 resolv...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Canadian Medical Association journal 1997-05, Vol.156 (10), p.1411-1416 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1416 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 1411 |
| container_title | Canadian Medical Association journal |
| container_volume | 156 |
| creator | Jadad, A. R Cook, D. J Browman, G. P |
| description | 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 conflicts produce difficulties for decision-makers (including clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and patients) who rely on these reviews to help them make choices among alternative interventions when experts and the results of trials disagree. The authors provide an adjunct decision tool--a decision algorithm--to help decision-makers select from among discordant reviews. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1227410</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>79042812</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-h321t-d6bfbb9bef7d52111ba3fa9b00747859abeb8df57b374fe7da092175a1149b473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkF1LwzAYhYMoc05_glC8EG8KedO0aW6EMfyCgTd6HZIlbTP6MZN0Zf_ewIaoVy-c83A47zlDc6BlmZKM8HM0xxiXKaWYX6Ir77cYRx3TGZpxKKKM5yhfJvVotUnCkNg-GLdzJti-TrT1m8Fp2YfEH3wwnQx2kzizt2by1-iikq03N6e7QJ_PTx-r13T9_vK2Wq7TJiMQUl2oSimuTMV0TgBAyaySXGHMKCtzLpVRpa5ypjJGK8O0xJwAyyUA5YqybIEej7m7UXVGb0wfnGzFztlOuoMYpBV_nd42oh72AghhFHAMuD8FuOFrND6ILv5l2lb2Zhi9YBxTUgKJ4N0_cDuMro_PibhYiTkt8gjd_q7z0-O0ZvQfjn5j62ayzgjfybaNNIhpmiAvBGABFCD7BtWwgBY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>204809465</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Jadad, A. R ; Cook, D. J ; Browman, G. P</creator><creatorcontrib>Jadad, A. R ; Cook, D. J ; Browman, G. P</creatorcontrib><description>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 conflicts produce difficulties for decision-makers (including clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and patients) who rely on these reviews to help them make choices among alternative interventions when experts and the results of trials disagree. The authors provide an adjunct decision tool--a decision algorithm--to help decision-makers select from among discordant reviews.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-4409</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0820-3946</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1488-2329</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9164400</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CMAJAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Canada: Can Med Assoc</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Bias ; Browman, George P ; Cook, Deborah J ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Decision Trees ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Humans ; Medical literature ; Medical research ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Patient Selection ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Design - standards ; Review ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Canadian Medical Association journal, 1997-05, Vol.156 (10), p.1411-1416</ispartof><rights>Copyright Canadian Medical Association May 15, 1997</rights><rights>1997 Canadian Medical Association 1997</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1227410/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1227410/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9164400$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jadad, A. R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, D. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Browman, G. P</creatorcontrib><title>A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews</title><title>Canadian Medical Association journal</title><addtitle>CMAJ</addtitle><description>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 conflicts produce difficulties for decision-makers (including clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and patients) who rely on these reviews to help them make choices among alternative interventions when experts and the results of trials disagree. The authors provide an adjunct decision tool--a decision algorithm--to help decision-makers select from among discordant reviews.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Browman, George P</subject><subject>Cook, Deborah J</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Decision Trees</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical literature</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Meta-Analysis as Topic</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research Design - standards</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0008-4409</issn><issn>0820-3946</issn><issn>1488-2329</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkF1LwzAYhYMoc05_glC8EG8KedO0aW6EMfyCgTd6HZIlbTP6MZN0Zf_ewIaoVy-c83A47zlDc6BlmZKM8HM0xxiXKaWYX6Ir77cYRx3TGZpxKKKM5yhfJvVotUnCkNg-GLdzJti-TrT1m8Fp2YfEH3wwnQx2kzizt2by1-iikq03N6e7QJ_PTx-r13T9_vK2Wq7TJiMQUl2oSimuTMV0TgBAyaySXGHMKCtzLpVRpa5ypjJGK8O0xJwAyyUA5YqybIEej7m7UXVGb0wfnGzFztlOuoMYpBV_nd42oh72AghhFHAMuD8FuOFrND6ILv5l2lb2Zhi9YBxTUgKJ4N0_cDuMro_PibhYiTkt8gjd_q7z0-O0ZvQfjn5j62ayzgjfybaNNIhpmiAvBGABFCD7BtWwgBY</recordid><startdate>19970515</startdate><enddate>19970515</enddate><creator>Jadad, A. R</creator><creator>Cook, D. J</creator><creator>Browman, G. P</creator><general>Can Med Assoc</general><general>CMA Impact, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M3G</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19970515</creationdate><title>A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews</title><author>Jadad, A. R ; Cook, D. J ; Browman, G. P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-h321t-d6bfbb9bef7d52111ba3fa9b00747859abeb8df57b374fe7da092175a1149b473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Browman, George P</topic><topic>Cook, Deborah J</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Decision Trees</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical literature</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Meta-Analysis as Topic</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research Design - standards</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jadad, A. R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, D. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Browman, G. P</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>CBCA Reference & Current Events</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Canadian Medical Association journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jadad, A. R</au><au>Cook, D. J</au><au>Browman, G. P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews</atitle><jtitle>Canadian Medical Association journal</jtitle><addtitle>CMAJ</addtitle><date>1997-05-15</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>156</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1411</spage><epage>1416</epage><pages>1411-1416</pages><issn>0008-4409</issn><issn>0820-3946</issn><eissn>1488-2329</eissn><coden>CMAJAX</coden><abstract>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 conflicts produce difficulties for decision-makers (including clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and patients) who rely on these reviews to help them make choices among alternative interventions when experts and the results of trials disagree. The authors provide an adjunct decision tool--a decision algorithm--to help decision-makers select from among discordant reviews.</abstract><cop>Canada</cop><pub>Can Med Assoc</pub><pmid>9164400</pmid><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0008-4409 |
| ispartof | Canadian Medical Association journal, 1997-05, Vol.156 (10), p.1411-1416 |
| issn | 0008-4409 0820-3946 1488-2329 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1227410 |
| source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Algorithms Bias Browman, George P Cook, Deborah J Data Interpretation, Statistical Decision Trees Evidence-Based Medicine Humans Medical literature Medical research Meta-Analysis as Topic Patient Selection Reproducibility of Results Research Design - standards Review Systematic review |
| title | A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T22%3A41%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20guide%20to%20interpreting%20discordant%20systematic%20reviews&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20Medical%20Association%20journal&rft.au=Jadad,%20A.%20R&rft.date=1997-05-15&rft.volume=156&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1411&rft.epage=1416&rft.pages=1411-1416&rft.issn=0008-4409&rft.eissn=1488-2329&rft.coden=CMAJAX&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E79042812%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=204809465&rft_id=info:pmid/9164400&rfr_iscdi=true |