Cartabellotta A, Minella C, Bevilacqua L, Caltagirone P
Gruppo Italiano per la Medicina Basata sulle Evidenze-GIMBE, Palermo.
Recenti Prog Med. 1998 Jun;89(6):329-37.
The reviews of research, summarizing a great amount of studies in a manageable format, are invaluable tools for physicians, inundated with enormous amount of biomedical information. However, narrative reviews are often misleading because, mixing together opinions of authors and results of research, the relation between clinical recommendation and evidence is partial and based on a biased citation of primary studies. In contrast to narrative reviews, the systematic reviews assemble, critically appraise, and synthesize the results of primary studies addressing a specific topic. Additionally their authors use strategies for minimizing bias and random error. The science of systematic reviews is now supported by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international network established for "preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care". The authors provide tools for searching, critically appraising and using in practice the systematic reviews, which use can help physicians to improve the transfer of research in clinical practice, a task obliged by limitation of financial resources to physicians of any health service.
研究综述以一种易于管理的形式总结了大量研究,对于被海量生物医学信息淹没的医生来说是非常宝贵的工具。然而,叙述性综述往往具有误导性,因为它将作者的观点和研究结果混在一起,临床推荐与证据之间的关系不完整,且基于对原始研究的有偏见的引用。与叙述性综述不同,系统综述会收集、批判性地评估并综合针对特定主题的原始研究结果。此外,其作者会采用各种策略来尽量减少偏倚和随机误差。系统综述这门科学如今得到了Cochrane协作网的支持,这是一个为“准备、维护和传播关于医疗保健效果的系统综述”而建立的国际网络。作者们提供了用于检索、批判性评估和在实践中使用系统综述的工具,这些工具的使用有助于医生在临床实践中更好地应用研究成果,这是任何医疗服务机构的医生因财政资源有限而必须承担的一项任务。