Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2015
Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals: a methodological review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McCrae Niall, Purssell Edward
Аннотация
RATIONALE AND AIM: Clear and logical eligibility criteria are fundamental to the design and conduct of a systematic review. This methodological review examined the quality of reporting and application of eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in three leading medical journals.
METHODS: All systematic reviews in the BMJ, JAMA and The Lancet in the years 2013 and 2014 were extracted. These were assessed using a refined version of a checklist previously designed by the authors.
RESULTS: A total of 113 papers were eligible, of which 65 were in BMJ, 17 in The Lancet and 31 in JAMA. Although a generally high level of reporting was found, eligibility criteria were often problematic. In 67% of papers, eligibility was specified after the search sources or terms. Unjustified time restrictions were used in 21% of reviews, and unpublished or unspecified data in 27%. Inconsistency between journals was apparent in the requirements for systematic reviews.
CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reviews in these leading medical journals was high; however, there were issues that reduce the clarity and replicability of the review process. As well as providing a useful checklist, this methodological review informs the continued development of standards for systematic reviews.
METHODS: All systematic reviews in the BMJ, JAMA and The Lancet in the years 2013 and 2014 were extracted. These were assessed using a refined version of a checklist previously designed by the authors.
RESULTS: A total of 113 papers were eligible, of which 65 were in BMJ, 17 in The Lancet and 31 in JAMA. Although a generally high level of reporting was found, eligibility criteria were often problematic. In 67% of papers, eligibility was specified after the search sources or terms. Unjustified time restrictions were used in 21% of reviews, and unpublished or unspecified data in 27%. Inconsistency between journals was apparent in the requirements for systematic reviews.
CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reviews in these leading medical journals was high; however, there were issues that reduce the clarity and replicability of the review process. As well as providing a useful checklist, this methodological review informs the continued development of standards for systematic reviews.