Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 19, Issue 12, pp 1240–1241 | Cite as

A call for systematic reviews

  • Victor M. Montori
  • Somnath Saha
  • Mike Clarke


  1. 1.
    Yusuf S, Held P, Teo KK, Toretsky ER. Selection of patients for randomized controlled trials: implications of wide or narrow eligibility criteria. Stat Med. 1990;9:73–83; discussion 83–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R. Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med. 1984;3:409–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oxman A, Guyatt GH, Cook D, Montori V. Summarizing the evidence. In: Guyatt GH, Rennie D, eds. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature. A Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice. Chicago, Ill: AMA Press; 2002:155–73.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:12–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C, et al. The medical review article revisited: has the science improved? Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:947–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268:240–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1367–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chalmers I. The Cochrane collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:156–63; discussion 163–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petticrew M, Song F, Wilson P, Wright K. Quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions and the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (DARE). NHS CRD Review, Dissemination, and Information Teams. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:671–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graham J. Perspectives. AHCPR’s evidence-based centers: will their findings guide clinical practice? Med Health. 1998;52(suppl):1–4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. BMC Med. 2003;1:2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gerrity MS, Tierney WM. Stepping up to the plate. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:805–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor M. Montori
    • 1
  • Somnath Saha
    • 2
  • Mike Clarke
    • 3
  1. 1.Mayo Clinic College of MedicineRochester
  2. 2.Portland VA Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science UniversityPortland
  3. 3.UK Cochrane CentreOxfordEngland

Personalised recommendations