Poor reviews may not give a true reflection of the evidence
Hopwood, Val and White, Peter (2001) Poor reviews may not give a true reflection of the evidence. Physiotherapy, 87, (10), 549 - 551. (doi:10.1016/S0031-9406(05)65453-3).
Full text not available from this repository.
The predominance of poor systematic reviews in the current research literature is an unfortunate development, particularly in the light of the undoubtedly excellent work of the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of any review depends entirely on the quality of the research work included. A common dismissive comment about this type of review is ‘Garbage in, garbage out'. It is therefore the responsibility of all researchers to make sure that this cannot apply to their own work. A literature review of the effectiveness of four modalities commonly used to relieve pain was published in the August 2001 issue of Physiotherapy. That paper originated as part of an informal workshop held at the World Confederation for Physical Therapy Congress in Japan in May 2000. This should have been made clear in the published format, as several aspects of it, particularly with regard to acupuncture, may cause concern.
This opinion piece was originally written as a letter in response to publication of the WCPT report. Unfortunately the shortcomings evident in it are quite common and should lead us to consider very carefully any claims as to clinical efficacy, or lack ot it, in the acupuncture field.
|Keywords:||systematic review, meta-analysis, quality, acupuncture|
|Subjects:||Z Bibliography. Library Science. Information Resources > Z004 Books. Writing. Paleography
R Medicine > RZ Other systems of medicine
|Divisions:||University Structure - Pre August 2011 > Superseded (SOHPRS)
|Date Deposited:||18 Nov 2005|
|Last Modified:||02 Mar 2012 12:25|
|Contributors:||Hopwood, Val (Author)
White, Peter (Author)
|RDF:||RDF+N-Triples, RDF+N3, RDF+XML, Browse.|
Actions (login required)