International Journal of Epidemiology 2002;31:123-124
© International Epidemiological Association 2002
Special Theme: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis |
Commentary: Searching for trials for systematic reviews: what difference does it make?
UK Cochrane Centre, NHS R&D Programme, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way Oxford OX2 7LG, UK. E-mail: mclarke@cochrane.co.uk
Systematic reviews are increasingly common as a means of assessing the relative effectiveness of health care interventions. This is not least because of the formation of the Cochrane Collaboration with its aim to prepare, maintain and promote the accessibility of reviews in all areas of health care.1 Just as systematic reviews contribute to the practice of evidence-based health care, so should the conduct of reviews be based on good evidence, ideally from empirical research. The paper by Juni et al.2 adds to this evidence base.
For all but the last century, decisions on how to treat patients were almost always based on personal experience, anecdotal case histories and highly selective retrospective
Acknowledgments
References
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. Flores-Mir and P. W. Major A systematic review of cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the Activator and Bionator appliances in Class II division 1 subjects Eur J Orthod, December 1, 2006; 28(6): 586 - 593. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. H Pittler and E. Ernst Dietary supplements for body-weight reduction: a systematic review Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, April 1, 2004; 79(4): 529 - 536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Egger, S. Ebrahim, and G. D. Smith Where now for meta-analysis? Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2002; 31(1): 1 - 5. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||


