An analysis of review articles published in four anaesthesia journals
- PMID: 9104524
- DOI: 10.1007/BF03014462
An analysis of review articles published in four anaesthesia journals
Abstract
Purpose: To see if the authors of review articles in anaesthesia journals are making use of systematic methods in their preparation.
Methods: Twenty-five review articles published in 1995 in four major anaesthesia journals were analysed and compared with standard guidelines for the appraisal of reviews.
Results: Of the 25 articles, only 14 stated a clear purpose. Only two revealed the search strategy used to identity articles for the review. None of the reviews featured any type of quality assessment of the primary studies included, or stated what criteria, if any, were used to determine what material was included or excluded. Useful areas for future research were highlighted in only seven reviews.
Conclusion: There is little evidence that reviews currently accepted for publication in anaesthesia journals have been prepared systematically.
Comment in
-
Systematic reviews: the case for rigorous methods and rigorous reporting.Can J Anaesth. 1997 Apr;44(4):350-3. doi: 10.1007/BF03014452. Can J Anaesth. 1997. PMID: 9104514 English, French. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster.J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jun;61(6):531-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.004. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008. PMID: 18471656
-
The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.Crit Care Med. 2007 Feb;35(2):589-94. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000253394.15628.FD. Crit Care Med. 2007. PMID: 17205029
-
Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: a 6-year follow-up.Anesth Analg. 2009 Jun;108(6):1916-21. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31819fe6d7. Anesth Analg. 2009. PMID: 19448222
-
Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008.J Urol. 2010 Aug;184(2):648-53. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.127. Epub 2010 Jun 19. J Urol. 2010. PMID: 20639030 Review.
-
Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews.J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Aug;59(8):765-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.010. Epub 2006 May 30. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006. PMID: 16828667 Review.
Cited by
-
Systematic reviews with language restrictions and no author contact have lower overall credibility: a methodology study.Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Mar 31;7:243-7. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S78879. eCollection 2015. Clin Epidemiol. 2015. PMID: 25878512 Free PMC article.
-
Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 19;6(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0507-6. Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28629396 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004 Sep 16;4:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-22. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004. PMID: 15369598 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence.Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 12;7(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0784-8. Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 30314530 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
