Cargando…
Is typifying systematic reviews and meta-analysis as the top on the ladder justified?
A large number—possibly the large majority—of systematic reviews and meta-analyses produced to date may not be useful for various reasons. This article though not ruling out the usefulness of these, is raising concerns on the way these are conducted or intended for in terms of outcomes.
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
| Lenguaje: | English |
| Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9051731/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35495801 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2367_21 |
| _version_ | 1784696627015974912 |
|---|---|
| author | Raina, Sunil K. Kumar, Raman |
| author_facet | Raina, Sunil K. Kumar, Raman |
| author_sort | Raina, Sunil K. |
| collection | PubMed |
| description | A large number—possibly the large majority—of systematic reviews and meta-analyses produced to date may not be useful for various reasons. This article though not ruling out the usefulness of these, is raising concerns on the way these are conducted or intended for in terms of outcomes. |
| format | Online Article Text |
| id | pubmed-9051731 |
| institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
| record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
| spelling | pubmed-90517312022-04-30 Is typifying systematic reviews and meta-analysis as the top on the ladder justified? Raina, Sunil K. Kumar, Raman J Family Med Prim Care Editorial A large number—possibly the large majority—of systematic reviews and meta-analyses produced to date may not be useful for various reasons. This article though not ruling out the usefulness of these, is raising concerns on the way these are conducted or intended for in terms of outcomes. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022-03 2022-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9051731/ /pubmed/35495801 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2367_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
| spellingShingle | Editorial Raina, Sunil K. Kumar, Raman Is typifying systematic reviews and meta-analysis as the top on the ladder justified? |
| title | Is typifying systematic reviews and meta-analysis as the top on the ladder justified? |
| title_full | Is typifying systematic reviews and meta-analysis as the top on the ladder justified? |
| title_fullStr | Is typifying systematic reviews and meta-analysis as the top on the ladder justified? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Is typifying systematic reviews and meta-analysis as the top on the ladder justified? |
| title_short | Is typifying systematic reviews and meta-analysis as the top on the ladder justified? |
| title_sort | is typifying systematic reviews and meta-analysis as the top on the ladder justified? |
| topic | Editorial |
| url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9051731/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35495801 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2367_21 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rainasunilk istypifyingsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysisasthetopontheladderjustified AT kumarraman istypifyingsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysisasthetopontheladderjustified |