Abstract
Systematic reviews are becoming prominent tools to guide health care decisions. As the number of published systematic reviews increases, it is common to find more than 1 systematic review addressing the same or a very similar therapeutic question. Despite the promise for systematic reviews to resolve conflicting results of primary studies, conflicts among reviews are now emerging. Such conflicts produce difficulties for decision-makers (including clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and patients) who rely on these reviews to help them make choices among alternative interventions when experts and the results of trials disagree. The authors provide an adjunct decision tool--a decision algorithm--to help decision-makers select from among discordant reviews.
- Copyright © 1997 by Canadian Medical Association
In this issue
Article tools
Related Articles
Cited By...
- When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist
- Hyperosmolar therapy for acute brain injury: study protocol for an umbrella review of meta-analyses and an evidence mapping
- Viscosupplementation in Knee Osteoarthritis: Evidence Revisited
- The effects of excluding treatments from network meta-analyses: survey
- Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies
- Meta-Analyses in Joint Arthroplasty: A Review of Quantity, Quality, and Impact
- The role of meta-analysis in the evaluation of the effects of early nutrition on mental and motor development in children
- Controlled search term vocabularies for finding articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion
- The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
- The impact of polyol-containing chewing gums on dental caries: A systematic review of original randomized controlled trials and observational studies
- Issues related to the conduct of systematic reviews: a focus on the nutrition field
- Meta-Analysis
- On "Effectiveness of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions..." Moe et al. Phys Ther. 2008;88: 1716-1727.
- Effectiveness of Nonpharmacological and Nonsurgical Interventions for Hip Osteoarthritis: An Umbrella Review of High-Quality Systematic Reviews
- Overlapping Systematic Reviews of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Comparing Hamstring Autograft with Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft: Why Are They Different?
- Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study
- Influenza vaccine for all?
- Albumin for fluid resuscitation: Implications of the Saline Versus Albumin Fluid Evaluation
- Review: St John's Wort may be less effective than previously thought in people with depression
- Analysing the efficacy of clozapine
- Meta-analyses and megatrials: neither is the infallible, universal standard
- Evidence-Based Guidelines: Application to Clinical Practice
- The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews
- Overview of Evidence-based Medicine: Challenges for Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine
- Calcium Antagonists for Ischemic Stroke : A Systematic Review
- Does Locoregional Radiation Therapy Improve Survival in Breast Cancer? A Meta-Analysis