With respect, Amy, you are only 33.333% correct: summary based evidence is simpler to read.
But fewer complications? How about bias (conscious/unconscious) on the part of the reviewers? How about poor quality summaries that are not comprehensive or do not appraise studies correctly for validity? We have discussed examples of these on this list before.
And the evidence never speaks. It has no voice. Humans interpret it. 
Kev Hopayian
On 22 Sep 2011, at 19:53, Dr. Amy Price wrote:

Dear Carlos and all,
 
As a mental health consultant, I find my colleagues value a summary based on the evidence as this is simpler, has fewer complications and lets the body of evidence speak
 
Amy
 
Amy Price PhD
Building Brain Potential
 
 
 
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dr. Carlos Cuello
Sent: 22 September 2011 01:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CATS and POEMS
 
What does the clinician want? OR What is better for his/her daily practice? One single critically appraised article (relevant and valid although it might not give a definite answer when facing a clinical problem) or a summary of the evidence, based on a specific clinical question?
 
I know they are not mutually exclusive, and they both have specific value, but where should we aim our efforts?
 
I am attaching my blog post
 
Comments are welcome
 
 
 
-- 
Carlos A. Cuello-García, MD