Abstract
No one within endocrinology can keep up to date with the relevant evidence in their field of interest. The major bibliographic databases cover less than half the world’s literature and are biased toward English-language publications. Of the evidence available in the major databases, only a fraction can be found by the average searcher. Textbooks, editorials, and narrative reviews that have not been prepared systematically may be unreliable. Much evidence is unpublished, but unpublished evidence may be important, particularly for adverse effects (1,2). More easily accessible research reports tend to exaggerate the benefits of interventions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Hemminski E. Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing authorities. BMJ 1980;280:833–836.
Melander H, Ahlqvist J, Meijer G, Beermann B. Evidence b(i)ased medicine-selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003;326:1171–1175.
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996;312:71–72.
Sackett D, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, London, 2000.
Barrows HS, Pickell GC. Developing Clinical Problem-Solving Skills. A Guide to More Effective Diagnosis and Treatment. Norton and Company, New York, NY, 1991.
Stewart M, Weston WW, McWilliam CL, Freeman TR. Patient-Centered Medicne. Transforming the Clinical Method. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995.
Greenhalgh T. Narrative based medicine: narrative based medicine in an evidence based world. BMJ 1999;318:323–325.
Cochrane Library. Accessed 8/18/05. Available at www.cochrane.org/docs/whycc.htm.
Cochrane Library. Accessed 8/18/05. Available at www.cochrane.org/reviews/index.htm.
Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and metaanalyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278–280.
Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ 2001;323:829–832.
Update Software Ltd. Accessed 8/18/05. Available at www.update-software.com/comcritusers/.
The Cochrane Collaboration. Accessed 8/18/05. Available at www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/index.htm.
The Cochrane Collaboration Review Titles Manager. Accessed 8/18/05. Available at www.cochrane.no/titles.
Higgins, JPT, Green, S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]. Accessed 5/31/05. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook/htm.
Eysenck HJ. An exercise in mega-silliness. Am Psychol 1978;33:517.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of metaanalyses. Lancet 199;354:1896–1900.
Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for metaanalysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054–1060.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–1558.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–560.
Reproductive Health Outlook. Accessed 8/18/05. Available at www.rho.org/html/who-rhlibrary.htm.
Chalmers I. Unbiased, relevant, and reliable assessments in health care. BMJ 1998;317:1167–1168.
Chalmers I, Altman DG. How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing. Lancet 1999;353:490–493.
Blumenthal D. Doctors and drug companies. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1885–1890.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Richter, B. (2006). The Value of Systematic Reviews in Endocrinology. In: Montori, V.M. (eds) Evidence-Based Endocrinology. Contemporary Endocrinology. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-008-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-008-9_12
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-579-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-59745-008-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)