TY - JOUR
T1 - The medical review article revisited
T2 - Has the science improved?
AU - McAlister, Finlay A.
AU - Clark, Heather D.
AU - Van Walraven, Carl
AU - Straus, Sharon E.
AU - Lawson, Fiona M.E.
AU - Moher, David
AU - Mulrow, Cynthia D.
PY - 1999/12/21
Y1 - 1999/12/21
N2 - Background: The validity of a review depends on its methodologic quality. Objective: To determine the methodologic quality of recently published review articles. Design: Critical appraisal. Setting: All reviews of clinical topics published in six general medical journals in 1996. Measurements: Explicit criteria that have been published and validated were used. Results: Of 158 review articles, only 2 satisfied all 10 methodologic criteria (median number of criteria satisfied, 1). Less than a quarter of the articles described how evidence was identified, evaluated, or integrated; 34% addressed a focused clinical question; and 39% identified gaps in existing knowledge. Of the 111 reviews that made treatment recommendations, 48% provided an estimate of the magnitude of potential benefits (and 34%, the potential adverse effects) of the treatment options, 45% cited randomized clinical trials to support their recommendations, and only 6% made any reference to costs. Conclusions: The methodologic quality of clinical review articles is highly variable, and many of these articles do not specify systematic methods.
AB - Background: The validity of a review depends on its methodologic quality. Objective: To determine the methodologic quality of recently published review articles. Design: Critical appraisal. Setting: All reviews of clinical topics published in six general medical journals in 1996. Measurements: Explicit criteria that have been published and validated were used. Results: Of 158 review articles, only 2 satisfied all 10 methodologic criteria (median number of criteria satisfied, 1). Less than a quarter of the articles described how evidence was identified, evaluated, or integrated; 34% addressed a focused clinical question; and 39% identified gaps in existing knowledge. Of the 111 reviews that made treatment recommendations, 48% provided an estimate of the magnitude of potential benefits (and 34%, the potential adverse effects) of the treatment options, 45% cited randomized clinical trials to support their recommendations, and only 6% made any reference to costs. Conclusions: The methodologic quality of clinical review articles is highly variable, and many of these articles do not specify systematic methods.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033593076&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033593076&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.7326/0003-4819-131-12-199912210-00007
DO - 10.7326/0003-4819-131-12-199912210-00007
M3 - Review article
C2 - 10610646
AN - SCOPUS:0033593076
SN - 0003-4819
VL - 131
SP - 947
EP - 951
JO - Annals of internal medicine
JF - Annals of internal medicine
IS - 12
ER -