Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group
Pourquoi ce travail est-il dans la base ?
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Scores machine (provisoires)
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
- Écart entre enseignants
- 0,147 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
- Statut de validation
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle
Résumé
STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive method guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To help reviewers design, conduct, and report reviews of trials in the field of back and neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1997, the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group published method guidelines for systematic reviews. Since its publication, new methodologic evidence emerged and more experience was acquired in conducting reviews. METHODS: All reviews and protocols of the Back Review Group were assessed for compliance with the 1997 method guidelines. Also, the most recent version of the Cochrane Handbook (4.1) was checked for new recommendations. In addition, some important topics that were not addressed in the 1997 method guidelines were included (e.g., methods for qualitative analysis, reporting of conclusions, and discussion of clinical relevance of the results). In May 2002, preliminary results were presented and discussed in a workshop. In two rounds, a list of all possible recommendations and the final draft were circulated for comments among the editors of the Back Review Group. RESULTS: The recommendations are divided in five categories: literature search, inclusion criteria, methodologic quality assessment, data extraction, and data analysis. Each recommendation is classified in minimum criteria and further guidance. Additional recommendations are included regarding assessment of clinical relevance, and reporting of results and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews need to be conducted as carefully as the trials they report and, to achieve full impact, systematic reviews need to meet high methodologic standards.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
La notice
- Revue
- Spine
- Thématique
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Domaine
- Decision Sciences
- Établissements canadiens
- University of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalInstitute for Work & Health
- Organismes subventionnaires
- —
- Mots-clés
- MedicineSystematic reviewData extractionMEDLINERelevance (law)Alternative medicineCochrane collaborationCochrane LibraryFamily medicineMedical educationMedical physicsPathology
- Résumé présent dans OpenAlex
- oui