【24h】

Pitfalls in systematic reviews.

机译:系统审查的陷阱。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The term 'evidence-based medicine' means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. An important source for those who wish to practise evidence-based medicine is the systematic review. Systematic reviews, however, are not without their pitfalls. This review will consider the problems and challenges for researchers and users of systematic reviews. RECENT FINDINGS: Failure to adequately assess study quality, funding bias, publication bias, reliance on outcomes that provide no help in clinical decision-making, analysis errors and the incorrect use of evidence statements are all common pitfalls in systematic reviews. SUMMARY: There are several steps in completing a systematic review. These include developing the clinical question, searching for all available literature, study selection, assessment of study quality, data extraction, data analysis, interpreting the results, implications for practice and further research, and finally updating the review in a timely manner. Authors of systematic reviews need to be aware of these problems and attempt to address them so that research evidence may be of clinical value to both providers and consumers of healthcare.
机译:审查目的:“循证医学”一词是指将个体临床专业知识与系统研究中可获得的最佳外部临床证据相结合。对于那些希望实践循证医学的人来说,重要的参考资料就是系统评价。但是,系统的审查并非没有陷阱。这篇综述将为研究者和系统评价的用户考虑问题和挑战。最近的发现:未能充分评估研究质量,资金偏倚,出版物偏倚,对临床决策无助的结果依赖,分析错误以及对证据陈述的不正确使用,都是系统评价中常见的陷阱。摘要:完成系统的审查有几个步骤。这些包括开发临床问题,搜索所有可用文献,研究选择,研究质量评估,数据提取,数据分析,解释结果,对实践和进一步研究的意义,以及最后及时更新评论。系统评价的作者需要意识到这些问题并尝试解决这些问题,以便研究证据对医疗保健提供者和消费者都有临床价值。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号