A guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers

Systematic reviews (SRs) provide a solution to handle information overload for busy clinicians by summarising and synthesizing studies on a specific issue. However, because SRs are complicated and often boring to read, the busy or reluctant reader may make do with the abstract. When, as it has been...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Innes, Stanley, Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Commentary
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37730646
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-023-00501-4
_version_ 1785108391829438464
author Innes, Stanley
Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte
author_facet Innes, Stanley
Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte
author_sort Innes, Stanley
collection PubMed
description Systematic reviews (SRs) provide a solution to handle information overload for busy clinicians by summarising and synthesizing studies on a specific issue. However, because SRs are complicated and often boring to read, the busy or reluctant reader may make do with the abstract. When, as it has been shown, many authors overstate efficacy or understate harm in their abstracts, not consulting the underlying article could be misleading. This means that the prudent reader must have the ability to identify the ‘tender points’ of SRs to avoid falling for ‘spin’. To this end we briefly review the method of SRs and ways to relatively quickly determine trustworthiness.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10512578
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105125782023-09-22 A guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers Innes, Stanley Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte Chiropr Man Therap Commentary Systematic reviews (SRs) provide a solution to handle information overload for busy clinicians by summarising and synthesizing studies on a specific issue. However, because SRs are complicated and often boring to read, the busy or reluctant reader may make do with the abstract. When, as it has been shown, many authors overstate efficacy or understate harm in their abstracts, not consulting the underlying article could be misleading. This means that the prudent reader must have the ability to identify the ‘tender points’ of SRs to avoid falling for ‘spin’. To this end we briefly review the method of SRs and ways to relatively quickly determine trustworthiness. BioMed Central 2023-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10512578/ /pubmed/37730646 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-023-00501-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Commentary
Innes, Stanley
Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte
A guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers
title A guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers
title_full A guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers
title_fullStr A guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers
title_full_unstemmed A guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers
title_short A guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers
title_sort guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37730646
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-023-00501-4
work_keys_str_mv AT innesstanley aguidetoevaluatingsystematicreviewsforthebusycliniciansorreluctantreaders
AT leboeufydecharlotte aguidetoevaluatingsystematicreviewsforthebusycliniciansorreluctantreaders
AT innesstanley guidetoevaluatingsystematicreviewsforthebusycliniciansorreluctantreaders
AT leboeufydecharlotte guidetoevaluatingsystematicreviewsforthebusycliniciansorreluctantreaders

Ejemplares similares