Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination

    Ann Intern Med. 1999 Dec 21;131(12):947-51.

    The medical review article revisited: has the science improved?

    McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C, Straus SE, Lawson FM, Moher D, Mulrow CD.

    University of Oxford, United Kingdom. Finlay.McAlister@ualberta.ca

    BACKGROUND: The validity of a review depends on its methodologic quality. OBJECTIVE: To determine the methodologic quality of recently published review articles. DESIGN: Critical appraisal. SETTING: All reviews of clinical topics published in six general medical journals in 1996. MEASUREMENTS: Explicit criteria that have been published and validated were used. RESULTS: Of 158 review articles, only 2 satisfied all 10 methodologic criteria (median number of criteria satisfied, 1). Less than a quarter of the articles described how evidence was identified, evaluated, or integrated; 34% addressed a focused clinical question; and 39% identified gaps in existing knowledge. Of the 111 reviews that made treatment recommendations, 48% provided an estimate of the magnitude of potential benefits (and 34%, the potential adverse effects) of the treatment options, 45% cited randomized clinical trials to support their recommendations, and only 6% made any reference to costs. CONCLUSIONS: The methodologic quality of clinical review articles is highly variable, and many of these articles do not specify systematic methods.

    PMID: 10610646 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    Supplemental Content

    Click here to read