 |
 |
Hi All, I'm helping a student with a piece of work and he described systematic reviews as being reliable. I'm troubled by this on a number of fronts: - Is there any evidence that they are reliable? - If they are reliable, in relation to what? A reliable car might not break down very often, so that outcome is clear. But I'm not sure what it means in relation to SRs - If SRs aren't properly described as 'reliable' what are they best described as? An underpinning assumption of SRs appears to be that if you identify all the published trials that bestows upon the SR a special status. This appears to be faith-based, not evidence-based. Any help out there? Best wishes jon -- Jon Brassey Director, Trip Database <http://www.tripdatabase.com> Honorary Fellow at CEBM <http://www.cebm.net>, University of Oxford Creator, Rapid-Reviews.info