Jon,
My approach is to use abstracts for exlusion only. For example,
abstracts can help quickly dump observational studies when you are
dealing with an issue of screening, prevention or therapy. Abstracts can
also help with getting rid of irrelevant studies, e.g., reporting
inappropriate (e.g. some intermediate) outcome measures. Since the
usual goal is to know the threats to validity and grade the study, I
believe full text is required in most situations. Mike
-- Michael Stuart MD
President, Delfini Group,
Clinical Asst Professor, UW School of Medicine
6831 31st Ave N.E.
Seattle, Washington 98115
206-854-3680 Mobile Phone
206-527-6146 Home Office
[log in to unmask]
www.delfini.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon Brassey
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Critically appraising abstracts
Hi!
In the ideal world health professionals would have access to full text
articles, the time to read them and the time to fully appraise them.
But they don't, frequently relying on abstracts.
Has any work been carried out on critically appraising abstracts?
If not what do people think of the idea of developing one? If we work
on the premise that doctors frequently rely on abstracts surely it makes
sense that they are as critical as possible.
If people are still with me and think it's a good idea any idea on what
'features' should be examined e.g. appropriate methodology, sample size,
appropriate outcomes etc.
jon
Jon Brassey
TRIP Database
www.tripdatabase.com
NLH Q&A Service
www.clinicalanswers.nhs.uk
ATTRACT
www.attract.wales.nhs.uk
-----------------------------------------
Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
|