--
------ Forwarded Message
From: Patrick Sequeira <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:33:45 +0200
To: "[log in to unmask]"
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Clean and Dirty EBHC
> Critical appraisal in clinical practice: sometimes irrelevant, occasionally
> invalid.
>
> Coomarasamy A, Latthe P, Papaioannou S, Publicover M, Gee H, Khan KS.
>
> Education Resource Centre, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Metchley Park Road,
> Birmingham B15 2TG, UK. [log in to unmask]
>
Greetings from the Swiss Alps,
Coming from the dental world I am always grateful for ways to find
information for that 1.5 minute gap between patients. This of course pales
into insignificance compared to 3 months time and more resources for a
thorough systematic review.
I was beaten to the reference but I wanted to add something that came from
reading the article from start to finish and may be relevant to this
discussion.
The relevance and validity would have been markedly improved in this study
had the subjects of the investigation searched in a hierarchical way.
Purely as an example:
1. Cochrane
2. Clinical evidence or other
3. Personal library
4. Pubmed
I imagine many of us have experience of the evidence progressing from
crystal clear water to soup along this list.
Cheers
Patrick Sequeira
Dr.med.dent. Patrick Sequeira
BDS London DMD Bern,Zürich MSc Oxford
eidg.dipl. Zahnarzt/Mitglied SSO
Alte Steinhauserstrasse 3
CH - 6330 Cham / Zug
Switzerland
------ End of Forwarded Message
|