Reading and interpreting reviews for health professionals: a practical review

被引:3
作者
Antonelli, Michele [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Firenzuoli, Fabio [3 ]
Salvarani, Carlo [4 ,5 ]
Gensini, Gian Franco [6 ]
Donelli, Davide [1 ,3 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Terme Monticelli, Via Basse 5, I-43022 Parma, Italy
[2] Univ Parma UniPr, Dept Med & Surg, I-43125 Parma, Italy
[3] Careggi Univ Hosp, Res & Innovat Ctr Phytotherapy & Integrated Med C, I-50139 Florence, Italy
[4] Univ Modena & Reggio Emilia UniMoRe, Dept Surg Dent & Morphol Sci, I-41125 Modena, Italy
[5] Azienda USL IRCCS Reggio Emilia, I-42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy
[6] IRCCS MultiMed, I-20099 Milan, Italy
关键词
Review; Evidence-based medicine; Methodology; Scientific literacy; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS;
D O I
10.1007/s11739-020-02334-y
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
100201 [内科学];
摘要
Literature reviews can be directly used by clinicians and other health professionals to support many decision-making processes. This review aims to offer health professionals an essential practical guide to critically evaluate and properly understand results of review articles published in the scientific literature. An evidence-based methodological review with step-by-step theoretical concepts and practical suggestions was developed. Key steps of this guide are: to consider the topic and the research question (a), to check the review type (b), to evaluate the methodology (with a keen focus on review guidelines, search strategy and study-selection process, evaluation of the quality and certainty of included evidence, and statistical analysis) (c), and to define the real impact of review results (d). This guide offers a description of essential and easy-to-apply key steps which can help health professionals to evaluate the reliability and implications of a literature review, and to select the latest high-quality scientific evidence to keep updated with.
引用
收藏
页码:945 / 955
页数:11
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]
Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search [J].
Allers, Katharina ;
Hoffmann, Falk ;
Mathes, Tim ;
Pieper, Dawid .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 95 :102-110
[2]
[Anonymous], 2013, TRIALS
[3]
[Anonymous], 2019, STUD QUAL ASS TOOLS
[4]
External Validity: The Next Step for Systematic Reviews? [J].
Avellar, Sarah A. ;
Thomas, Jaime ;
Kleinman, Rebecca ;
Sama-Miller, Emily ;
Woodruff, Sara E. ;
Coughlin, Rebecca ;
Westbrook, T'Pring R. .
EVALUATION REVIEW, 2017, 41 (04) :283-325
[5]
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence [J].
Balshem, Howard ;
Helfand, Mark ;
Schuenemann, Holger J. ;
Oxman, Andrew D. ;
Kunz, Regina ;
Brozek, Jan ;
Vist, Gunn E. ;
Falck-Ytter, Yngve ;
Meerpohl, Joerg ;
Norris, Susan ;
Guyatt, Gordon H. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (04) :401-406
[6]
Borenstein M., 2009, INTRO METAANALYSIS
[7]
A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches [J].
Bramer, Wichor M. ;
de Jonge, Gerdien B. ;
Rethlefsen, Melissa L. ;
Mast, Frans ;
Kleijnen, Jos .
JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2018, 106 (04) :531-541
[8]
Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study [J].
Bramer, Wichor M. ;
Rethlefsen, Melissa L. ;
Kleijnen, Jos ;
Franco, Oscar H. .
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, 6
[9]
From outdated to updated, keeping clinical guidelines valid [J].
Clark, Eloise ;
Donovan, Edward F. ;
Schoettker, Pamela .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2006, 18 (03) :165-166
[10]
CONWAY A, 2017, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V350, pG7624