Dr. Carlos Cuello wrote:
> Another reason why narrative review articles should be replaced by
> systematic reviews
I think that there is a misconception here. Narrative reviews (such as
textbooks chapters, for example) and systematic reviews are not mutually
exclusive. They are just two radically different types of publication
aimed to different kinds of information needs: background (narrative) or
foreground (systematic).
You cannot get background information (general knowledge about a topic)
by reading good systematic reviews focused to a single question: you
need publications with a broader scope. And you shouldn't look for
answers to foreground questions (answers to a specific problem) in
narrative reviews, regardless of ghostwriting:. Obviously, without good
background knowledge you cannot formulate good foreground questions,
and therefore narrative reviews cannot be replaced. After all, most of
the more popular and useful articles about EBM are narrative reviews..
So, it is the information need to be addressed, not the possible
robustness to ghostwriting, that should drive the choice of looking for
different kinds of publications.
regards,
Piersante Sestini
|