Guidelines for reading literature reviews.

One strategy for dealing with the burgeoning medical literature is to rely on reviews of the literature. Although this strategy is efficient, readers may be misled if the review does not meet scientific standards. Therefore, guidelines that will help readers assess the scientific quality of the review are proposed. The guidelines focus on the definition of the question, the comprehensiveness of the search strategy, the methods of choosing and assessing the primary studies, and the methods of combining the results and reaching appropriate conclusions. Application of the guidelines will allow clinicians to spend their valuable reading time on high-quality material and to judge the validity of an author's conclusions.

[1]  T. Poynard,et al.  The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver disease from the medical literature. A comparison of MEDLARS and manual methods. , 1985, Controlled clinical trials.

[2]  D J Baylink,et al.  Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. , 1983, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  R. Horwitz,et al.  Complexity and contradiction in clinical trial research. , 1987, The American journal of medicine.

[4]  T C Chalmers,et al.  Association of adrenocorticosteroid therapy and peptic-ulcer disease. , 1983, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  D Fitzgerald,et al.  How to keep up with the medical literature: I. Why try to keep up and how to get started. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.

[6]  T C Chalmers,et al.  Should mild hypertension be treated? An attempted meta-analysis of the clinical trials. , 1985, The Mount Sinai journal of medicine, New York.

[7]  H O Conn,et al.  Nonassociation of adrenocorticosteroid therapy and peptic ulcer. , 1976, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  N. Kaplan,et al.  Our appropriate concern about hypokalemia. , 1984, The American journal of medicine.

[9]  C. Mulrow The medical review article: state of the science. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[10]  D. Labarthe,et al.  Mild hypertension: the question of treatment. , 1986, Annual review of public health.

[11]  R. Simes Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. , 1986, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  H. Swan,et al.  Hemodynamic measurements in clinical practice: a decade in review. , 1983, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  T C Chalmers,et al.  A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. , 1981, Controlled clinical trials.

[14]  R. Simes,et al.  Confronting publication bias: a cohort design for meta-analysis. , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  J P Kassirer,et al.  Our national obsession with potassium. , 1982, The American journal of medicine.

[16]  E D Robin,et al.  The cult of the Swan-Ganz catheter. Overuse and abuse of pulmonary flow catheters. , 1985, Annals of internal medicine.

[17]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Determining causation--a case study: adrenocorticosteroids and osteoporosis. Should the fear of inducing clinically important osteoporosis influence the decision to prescribe adrenocorticosteroids? , 1984, Journal of chronic diseases.

[18]  T C Chalmers,et al.  Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. , 1982, The American journal of medicine.

[19]  M Susser,et al.  The logic of Sir Karl Popper and the practice of epidemiology. , 1986, American journal of epidemiology.

[20]  E. Huth,et al.  Needed: review articles with more scientific rigor. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[21]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. , 1980, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  T. Chalmers,et al.  Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Are active and passive smoking harmful? Determining causation. , 1985, Chest.