Problems in the “Evidence” of “Evidence-Based Medicine”

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Related collections

Most cited references 20

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Evidence-Based Medicine

Gordon Guyatt (1992)

0 comments Cited 241 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

H Sacks, J Berrier, D. Reitman … (1987)

A new type of research, termed meta-analysis, attempts to analyze and combine the results of previous reports. We found 86 meta-analyses of reports of randomized controlled trials in the English-language literature. We evaluated the quality of these meta-analyses, using a scoring method that considered 23 items in six major areas--study design, combinability, control of bias, statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and application of results. Only 24 meta-analyses (28 percent) addressed all six areas, 31 (36 percent) addressed five, 25 (29 percent) addressed four, 5 (6 percent) addressed three, and 1 (1 percent) addressed two. Of the 23 individual items, between 1 and 14 were addressed satisfactorily (mean +/- SD, 7.7 +/- 2.7). We conclude that an urgent need exists for improved methods in literature searching, quality evaluation of trials, and synthesizing of the results.