dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributorMcMaster University
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-27T11:30:06Z
dc.date.available2014-05-27T11:30:06Z
dc.date.created2014-05-27T11:30:06Z
dc.date.issued2013-08-01
dc.identifierJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, v. 19, n. 4, p. 633-637, 2013.
dc.identifier1356-1294
dc.identifier1365-2753
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/76160
dc.identifier10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01877.x
dc.identifierWOS:000329303400010
dc.identifier2-s2.0-84881150396
dc.identifier8889393461577095
dc.identifier0260120486355934
dc.identifier3228294827229620
dc.identifier9490853654189131
dc.identifier8223546475724058
dc.identifier9276729087180415
dc.identifier9327504777606061
dc.identifier8003931926137460
dc.identifier7199562550978496
dc.identifier9465938306255342
dc.identifier4043953540121335
dc.identifier0000-0002-0090-8524
dc.identifier0000-0002-1573-4678
dc.identifier0000-0002-6977-4165
dc.identifier0000-0002-9362-1505
dc.identifier0000-0001-8055-5425
dc.description.abstractRationale and aim The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased. Methods A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups. Results We analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%. Conclusion Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
dc.languageeng
dc.relationJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
dc.relation1.483
dc.relation0,641
dc.rightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectclinical medicine
dc.subjectclinical trials
dc.subjectCochrane reviews
dc.subjectevidence-based medicine
dc.subjectlimitations
dc.subjectmeta-analysis
dc.subjectresearch
dc.subjectreview literature
dc.subjectclinical practice
dc.subjectCochrane Library
dc.subjectcross-sectional study
dc.subjectevidence based medicine
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectmeta analysis
dc.subjectpriority journal
dc.subjectreview
dc.subjectsystematic review
dc.titleSystematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: What about in 2011? the next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución