综述文章的核对清单。
Checklists for review articles.
作者信息
Oxman A D
机构信息
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
出版信息
BMJ. 1994 Sep 10;309(6955):648-51. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6955.648.
Abstract
Preparing a review entails many judgments. The focus of the review must be decided. Studies that are relevant to the focus of the review must be identified, selected for inclusion and critically appraised. Information must be collected and synthesised from the relevant studies, and conclusions must be drawn. Checklists can help prevent important errors in this process. Reviewers, editors, content experts, and users of reviews all have a role to play in improving the quality of published reviews and promoting the appropriate use of reviews by decisionmakers. It is essential that both providers and users appraise the validity of review articles.
摘要
撰写一篇综述需要做出许多判断。必须确定综述的重点。必须识别、选择纳入并严格评估与综述重点相关的研究。必须从相关研究中收集和综合信息，并得出结论。清单有助于防止这一过程中出现重大错误。综述作者、编辑、内容专家以及综述使用者在提高已发表综述的质量以及促进决策者恰当地使用综述方面都发挥着作用。提供者和使用者都必须评估综述文章的有效性，这一点至关重要。
相似文献
1
Checklists for review articles.综述文章的核对清单。
BMJ. 1994 Sep 10;309(6955):648-51. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6955.648.
2
4
Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: methodological approaches to evaluate the literature and establish best evidence.脊髓型颈椎病：评估文献和建立最佳证据的方法学途径。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 15;38(22 Suppl 1):S9-18. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7ebbf.
5
Alphabetic bias in the selection of reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology.《美国放射学杂志》审稿人选择中的字母顺序偏见。
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Dec;191(6):W213-6. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3737.
6
8
Physiatry Reviews for Evidence in Practice (PREP), Second-Order Peer Reviews of Clinically Relevant Articles for the Physiatrist.《物理医学实践证据综述》（PREP），针对物理治疗师的临床相关文章的二阶同行评审。
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Oct;94(10):820-2. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000314.
9
Conducting systematic reviews of intervention questions III: Synthesizing data from intervention studies using meta-analysis.干预问题的系统评价（三）：使用荟萃分析综合干预研究的数据
Zoonoses Public Health. 2014 Jun;61 Suppl 1:52-63. doi: 10.1111/zph.12123.
10
Reading systematic reviews.阅读系统评价
Aust Fam Physician. 2002 Aug;31(8):736-40.
引用本文的文献
1
Waste and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Produced from Ophthalmic Surgeries: A Scoping Review.眼科手术产生的废物和温室气体排放：一项范围综述
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Dec 31;22(1):51. doi: 10.3390/ijerph22010051.
2
Systematization of peer review in Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde.《流行病学与卫生服务》同行评审的系统化
Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2024 Dec 13;33:e20241001. doi: 10.1590/S2237-96222024v33e20241001.en.
3
A systematic review of prevalence of pain in nursing home residents with dementia.对痴呆养老院居民疼痛患病率的系统评价。
BMC Geriatr. 2023 Oct 10;23(1):641. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04340-z.
4
The Top 100 Most-Cited Publications in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: A Bibliometric Analysis.肌肉骨骼康复领域被引用次数最多的100篇出版物：一项文献计量分析。
Indian J Orthop. 2022 Jun 22;56(8):1327-1338. doi: 10.1007/s43465-022-00672-x. eCollection 2022 Aug.
5
A systematic review of self-report measures used in epidemiological studies to assess alcohol consumption among older adults.系统评价在流行病学研究中用于评估老年人饮酒的自我报告测量方法。
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 16;16(12):e0261292. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261292. eCollection 2021.
6
Commentary on: Evaluating the Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses About Breast Augmentation Using AMSTAR.关于《使用AMSTAR评估隆胸系统评价和Meta分析的质量》的述评
Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2021 Jun 11;3(3):ojab023. doi: 10.1093/asjof/ojab023. eCollection 2021 Sep.
7
Effect of Parkinson's disease and two therapeutic interventions on muscle activity during walking: a systematic review.帕金森病及两种治疗干预对步行时肌肉活动的影响：一项系统评价
NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2020 Sep 9;6:22. doi: 10.1038/s41531-020-00119-w. eCollection 2020.
8
Zinc-alpha2-glycoprotein, dysglycaemia and insulin resistance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.锌-α2-糖蛋白、糖代谢异常和胰岛素抵抗：系统评价和荟萃分析。
Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2020 Dec;21(4):569-575. doi: 10.1007/s11154-020-09553-w.
9
Biofeedback Systems for Gait Rehabilitation of Individuals with Lower-Limb Amputation: A Systematic Review.用于下肢截肢者步态康复的生物反馈系统：系统评价。
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Mar 14;20(6):1628. doi: 10.3390/s20061628.
10
Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?主要和次要医学研究的方法学质量（偏倚风险）评估工具：它们是什么，哪个更好？
Mil Med Res. 2020 Feb 29;7(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8.
本文引用的文献
1
Users' guides to the medical literature.医学文献用户指南
JAMA. 1993 Nov 3;270(17):2096-7.
2
Users' guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.医学文献用户指南。I. 如何入门。循证医学工作组。
JAMA. 1993 Nov 3;270(17):2093-5.
3
Second thoughts. Proposals for the health sciences--I. Compulsory retirement for experts.再思考。健康科学的提议——一、专家的强制退休
J Chronic Dis. 1983;36(7):545-7. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(83)90132-7.
4
Guidelines for reading literature reviews.文献综述阅读指南。
CMAJ. 1988 Apr 15;138(8):697-703.
5
Meta-analysis in clinical research.临床研究中的荟萃分析。
Ann Intern Med. 1987 Aug;107(2):224-33. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224.
6
Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis.196项类风湿性关节炎非甾体抗炎药双盲试验报告中的方法学以及显性和隐性偏差。
Control Clin Trials. 1989 Mar;10(1):31-56. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90017-2.
7
Some statistical methods for combining experimental results.一些用于整合实验结果的统计方法。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(1):5-30. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300008916.
8
Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Anatomy of a decision.临床决策：从理论到实践。决策剖析。
JAMA. 1990 Jan 19;263(3):441-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.263.3.441.
9
10
An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials.在对照随机临床试验中，治疗差异与质量评分可能关系的实证研究。
Control Clin Trials. 1990 Oct;11(5):339-52. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(90)90175-2.
Zotero 插件