TY - JOUR
AU - Cook, Deborah J.
AB - CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH Number 413, pp. 43–54 © 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. Methodologic Issues in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Victor M. Montori, MD, MSc*; Marc F. Swiontkowski, MD**; and Deborah J. Cook, MD, MSc Systematic reviews of original research are The Place of Systematic Reviews in the increasing in number. Systematic reviews are Hierarchy of Evidence distinct from narrative reviews because they Broadly defined, evidence is any empirical address a specific clinical question, require a observation about the association between comprehensive literature search, use explicit se- events. One observation (such as a case re- lection criteria to identify relevant studies, as- port) therefore is evidence but the inferences sess the methodologic quality of included stud- from that observation are limited to the circum- ies, explore differences among study results, and either qualitatively or quantitatively synthesize stances and characteristics of the observer study results. Systematic reviews that quantita- and that which was observed. If different ob- tively pool results of more than one study are servers independently make the same observa- called meta-analyses. Several organizations are tion (such as a multiple case reports or case se- collaboratively involved in producing high qual- ries), then inferences about 
TI - Methodologic Issues in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
JF - Clinical Orthopaedic and Related Research (CORR)
DO - 10.1097/01.blo.0000079322.41006.5b
DA - 2003-08-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/wolters-kluwer-health/methodologic-issues-in-systematic-reviews-and-meta-analyses-vig0ARvRYV
SP - 43
EP - 54
VL - 413
IS - 
DP - DeepDyve
ER -