This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (32)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Informatics/ Internet in Medicine  • Informatics, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

II. How Did the Authors Find the Studies and Assess Their Quality?

Alejandro R. Jadad, MD, DPhil; David Moher, MSc; Terry P. Klassen, MD, MSc

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152:812-817.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most powerful arguments used by the supporters of systematic reviews is that they overcome most of the limitations of narrative reviews by being the product of a scientific process to reduce bias and imprecision and by providing detailed information to allow replication by others.^1-2 Two of the most effective mechanisms for a systematic review to reduce bias and imprecision are including the maximum possible number of relevant individual trials and providing a detailed description of their strengths and limitations. We have structured this article to serve 2 purposes. First, we describe the characteristics of the ideal search, the limitations and decisions that most reviewers face when deciding how to search the literature, and the aspects of a report that readers should evaluate to assess the comprehensiveness and appropriateness of the search strategy. Second, we . . . [Full Text of this Article]

DID THE AUTHORS SEARCH THE LITERATURE COMPREHENSIVELY?

Bibliographic Databases

Hand-Search Sources

Contacting Researchers and Sponsoring Organizations

LOOKING AT THE BREADTH AND DEPTH OF THE LITERATURE SEARCH

WHEN IS A LITERATURE SEARCH COMPREHENSIVE?

HOW DID THE AUTHORS EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF THE TRIALS INCLUDED?

DID THE REVIEWERS ASSESS TRIAL QUALITY?

HOW WAS QUALITY ASSESSED?

Definition of Quality

Assessment Tools

Generation of the Assessments

WHAT DID THE REVIEWERS DO WITH THE ASSESSMENTS?

SHOULD THE ASSESSMENTS BE PERFORMED UNDER MASKED CONDITIONS?

CONCLUSIONS

From the Health Information Research Unit, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario (Dr Jadad); Thomas C. Chalmers Center for Systematic Reviews, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa (Mr Moher and Dr Klassen); and the Departments of Pediatrics and Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario (Mr Moher and Dr Klassen).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Mycophenolate Mofetil for Induction Therapy of Lupus Nephritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Walsh et al.
CJASN 2007;2:968-975.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Bracing and Other Conservative Interventions in the Treatment of Idiopathic Scoliosis in Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials
Lenssinck et al.
ptjournal 2005;85:1329-1339.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Insulin-sensitizing agents as primary therapy for patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome
Kashyap et al.
Hum Reprod 2004;19:2474-2483.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Scale of Methodological Quality for Clinical Studies of Radiologic Examinations
Arrivé et al.
Radiology 2000;217:69-74.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-based Medicine: A New Science or an Epidemiologic Fad?
Bauchner
Pediatrics 1999;103:1029-1031.
FULL TEXT