Cautionary tales in the interpretation of systematic reviews of therapy trials

I Scott; P Greenberg; P Poole; D Campbell

doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01140.x

Cautionary tales in the interpretation of systematic reviews of therapy trials

Intern Med J. 2006 Sep;36(9):587-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01140.x.

Authors

I Scott¹, P Greenberg, P Poole, D Campbell

Affiliation

¹ Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ian_scott@health.qld.gov.au

PMID: 16911551
DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01140.x

Abstract

This is the second in a series of articles emphasizing the cautions in the interpretation of health-care studies. Systematic reviews are presented as comprehensive, unbiased summaries of evidence and are often referred to by clinicians, guideline developers and health policy-makers. Their strengths and limitations, and how their results can be subject to bias and misinterpretation, are discussed.

MeSH terms

Humans
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Peer Review, Research / standards
Practice Guidelines as Topic / standards
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / standards*
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / trends*
Review Literature as Topic*
Treatment Outcome