0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Special Contribution |

Guides for Reading and Interpreting Systematic Reviews:  II. How Did the Authors Find the Studies and Assess Their Quality?

Alejandro R. Jadad, MD, DPhil; David Moher, MSc; Terry P. Klassen, MD, MSc
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152(8):812-817. doi:10.1001/archpedi.152.8.812.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

One of the most powerful arguments used by the supporters of systematic reviews is that they overcome most of the limitations of narrative reviews by being the product of a scientific process to reduce bias and imprecision and by providing detailed information to allow replication by others.1,2 Two of the most effective mechanisms for a systematic review to reduce bias and imprecision are including the maximum possible number of relevant individual trials and providing a detailed description of their strengths and limitations. We have structured this article to serve 2 purposes. First, we describe the characteristics of the ideal search, the limitations and decisions that most reviewers face when deciding how to search the literature, and the aspects of a report that readers should evaluate to assess the comprehensiveness and appropriateness of the search strategy. Second, we describe the limitations and decisions that most reviewers face when deciding how to assess trial quality and the aspects of a report that readers should evaluate to determine how trial quality has been assessed and the appropriateness of the assessments.

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();