International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Prague, CZE, 1997/09.
Context. - Review articles are important sources of information to help guide decisions by clinicians, patients, and other decision makers.
Ideally, reviews should include strategies to minimize bias and to maximize precision and be reported so explicitly that any interested reader would be able to replicate them.
- To compare the methodological and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper-based journals indexed in MEDLINE.
- The Cochrane Library, issue 2 of 1995, and a search of MEDLINE restricted to 1995.
- All 36 completed reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and a randomly selected sample of 39 meta-analyses or systematic reviews published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in 1995.
- Number of authors, trials, and patients ; trial sources ; inclusion and exclusion criteria ; language restrictions ; primary outcome ; trial quality assessment ; heterogeneity testing ; and effect estimates.
Updating by 1997 was evaluated.
- Reviews found in MEDLINE included more authors (median, 3 vs 2 ; P<. 001.), more trials (median, 13.5 vs 5 ; P<. 001), and more patients (median, 1280 vs 528 ; P<. 001) than Cochrane reviews.
More Cochrane reviews, however, included a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (35/36 vs 18/39 ; P<. 001) and assessed trial quality (36/36 vs 12/39 ; P<. 001). (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Article, Médecine, Article synthèse, Métaanalyse, Etude comparative, Méthodologie, Homme, Littérature scientifique, Revue médicale, Cochrane revue
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Article, Medicine, Review, Metaanalysis, Comparative study, Methodology, Human, Scientific literature
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 98-0445311
Code Inist : 002B30A09. Création : 25/01/1999.