Skip to main content
Log in

Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: Complementary roles for systematic and nonsystematic reviews

  • Editorial
  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.


  • Colliver, J. A., Kucera, K., & Verhulst, S. J. (2008). Meta-analysis of quasi-experimental research: Are systematic narrative reviews indicated? Medical Education, 42, 858–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, D. A. (2005). The research we still are not doing: An agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Academic Medicine, 80, 541–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5), 376–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Côté, L., & Turgeon, J. (2005). Appraising qualitative research articles in medicine and medical education. Medical Teacher, 27, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devers, K. J. (1999). How will we know “good” qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Services Research, 34(5 part 2), 1153–1188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W. (2008). On the limits of systematicity. Medical Education, 42, 852–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., Neville, A. J., & Norman, G. R. (1998). Exploring the etiology of content specificity: Factors influencing analogic transfer and problem solving. Academic Medicine, 73(10 Suppl), S1–S5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2005). Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda. Academic Medicine, 80(10 Suppl), S46–S54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, guidelines. Lancet, 358, 483–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet, 354, 1896–1900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montori, V. M., Smieja, M., & Guyatt, G. H. (2000). Publication bias: A brief review for clinicians. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 75, 1284–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67, 557–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G. D., Rennie, D., et al. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA, 283, 2008–2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. G., Klamen, D. A., & McGaghie, W. C. (2003). Cognitive, social, and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings. Teaching & Learning in Medicine, 15, 270–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Cook.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cook, D.A. Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: Complementary roles for systematic and nonsystematic reviews. Adv in Health Sci Educ 13, 391–395 (2008).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: