BAL Lazio

Notizie

Revisioni sistematiche in primo piano

Pubblicato venerdì 28 Novembre 2014

Sul numero di dicembre del Journal of Clinical Epidemiology una serie di articoli metodologici sulla necessità di aggiornamento delle linee guida e delle revisioni sistematiche, sulle priorità dei temi presi in esame dalle revisioni e sulla possibilità di confrontare gli effetti di un trattamento su diverse patologie per individuare eventuali effetti inattesi.

Come si legge nell’editoriale “le revisioni sistematiche sono ampiamente riconosciute come il fondamento di una buona assistenza sanitaria, per cui la loro qualità, validità e credibilità sono cruciali per i pazienti, i professionisti e la società”.

Gli articoli liberamente accessibili:
J Knottnerus JA, Tugwell P. Knowledge synthesis to improve practice requires up-to-date definitions, content, methods, and techniques. J Clin Epidemiol 2014, 67 (12): 1289–1290.
Pieper D, Antoine S, Neugebauer EAM, Eikermann M. Up-to-dateness of reviews is often neglected in overviews: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2014, 67 (12): 1302–1308.
Chen Y, Hemming K, Chilton PJ, Gupta KV, Altman DG, Lilford RJ. Scientific hypotheses can be tested by comparing the effects of one treatment over many diseases in a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2014, 67 (12): 1309–1319.
Agbassi C, Messersmith H, McNair S, Brouwers M. Priority-based initiative for updating existing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: the results of two iterations. J Clin Epidemiol 2014, 67 (12): 1335–1342.

 

 

Archiviato in ,

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *

Accedi agli articoli

Miovský M et al. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder among clients diagnosed with a substance use disorder in the therapeutic communities: prevalence and psychiatric comorbidity. Eur Addict Res 2020.

Ortel TL et al. American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Blood Adv 2020; 4(19): 4693-4738.

Chu JJ et al. Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2020 Sep 12;396(10253):770-778.

Vodicka TA et al. Reducing antibiotic prescribing for children with respiratory tract infections in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2013;63(612):e445-54.

Dominici F, et al. Air pollution, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and COVID-19 outcomes: a state-of-the-science review of a rapidly evolving research area. medRxiv 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.16.20175901

Marion M Mafham et al. COVID-19 pandemic and admission rates for and management of acute coronary syndromes in England. Lancet 2020;S0140-6736(20)31356-8.

Orkaby AR. Association of statin use with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in US veterans 75 years and older. JAMA 2020;324(1):68-78

Lethaby AE et al. Progesterone/progestogen releasing intrauterine systems versus either placebo or any other medication for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD002126. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002126.

Levis B. Accuracy of the PHQ-2 alone and in combination with the PHQ-9 for screening to detect major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2020;323(22):2290-2300.

Una finestra sull’open access

  • BMC Family Practice
  • BMC Medical Education
  • BMC Nursing
  • BMJ Open
  • PLOS Medicine

Reset della password

Per favore inserisci la tua email. Riceverai una nuova password via email.