Why not use the JAMA guide - but i'm sure you have thought of this.
The only purpose behind this is if they disagree - if there is agreement
then you are left looking at the size of the odds ratio etc - if there is
disagreement here then it is farely straight forward to assess why certain
studies were included/excluded
what is disastrous is that with not enough time and not enough people to do
SR's, two groups have duplicated a systematic review - a salutory lesson
martin
Dr Martin Dawes
Director
NHS R&D Centre for Evidence Based Medicine
University of Oxford
John Radcliffe Hospital
Oxford OX3 9DU
-----Original Message-----
From: James Woodcock [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 January 2000 16:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: systematic reviews
Does anyone know of recent research or have any suggestions relating to the
following questions? We are looking for a system choose between different
systematic reviews on the same question? There is the quorum checklist but
that is really an editorial tool on how to write a good systematic review;
rather than how to choose between ones that already exist. What would be
good would be a short list of questions that indicate the review has been
done thoroughly. These might not be the same for different areas. A problem
with generating these is the lack of a gold standard to compare the
questions with. A possible gold standard would be further evidence (good
quality cohort studies or RCT) consitent with the reviews conclusions. But
this would only allow comparisons between reviews choosing from the same
evidence base.
James Woodcock (freelance editor Clinical Evidence, BMJ publishing)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|