Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind?
Open Access
- 1 February 2002
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in International Journal of Epidemiology
- Vol. 31 (1), 6-12
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.1.6
Abstract
The public health and biomedicine communities have long recognized the need for regular synthesis of the available literature. Given the explosion of scientific information, there is simply too much literature available for any one person to be up-to-date. Review articles, which summarize existing knowledge in an area, serve to fill this need and are published in journals (e.g. Epidemiologic Reviews, Annual Reviews of Public Health) or special volumes, often as invited papers.Keywords
This publication has 66 references indexed in Scilit:
- Development of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Central Register of Controlled Clinical TrialsEvaluation & the Health Professions, 2002
- Better Access to Information about Clinical TrialsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2000
- Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in EpidemiologyA Proposal for ReportingJAMA, 2000
- Registering clinical trialsBMJ, 1999
- The Cochrane Collaboration: Evaluation of Health Care and Services Using Systematic Reviews of the Results of Randomized Controlled TrialsClinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1998
- Quality of reviews in epidemiology.American Journal of Public Health, 1998
- Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52 705 women with breast cancer and 108 411 women without breast cancerThe Lancet, 1997
- The Medical Review Article: State of the ScienceAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1987
- Findings for Public Health From Meta-AnalysesAnnual Review of Public Health, 1985
- Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trialsThe American Journal of Medicine, 1982