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.

 

 

Tagged ,

Lascia un commento

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

Accedi agli articoli

Fakir AMS et al. Pandemic catch-22: the role of mobility restrictions and institutional inequalities in halting the spread of COVID-19. PLOS ONE 2021; 16(6): e0253348.

Alemany S, Avella-García C, Liew Z, et al. Prenatal and postnatal exposure to acetaminophen in relation to autism spectrum and attention-deficit and hyperactivity symptoms in childhood: Meta-analysis in six European population-based cohorts. Eur J Epidemiol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00754-4

Salazar de Pablo G et al. Universal and selective interventions to prevent poor mental health outcomes in young people: systematic review and meta-analysis. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 2021;29 (3) 196-215.

Currie JM et al. Prescribing of opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder during the covid-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4(4):e216147.

Marson A, Burnside G, Appleton R, et al.; SANAD II collaborators. The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021;397(10282):1375-1386.

Marson A, Burnside G, Appleton R, et al.; SANAD II collaborators. The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021;397(10282):1363-1374.

Zichi C et al. Adoption of multiple primary endpoints in phase III trials of systemic treatments in patients with advanced solid tumours. A systematic review. Eur j Canc 2021;149:49-60.

Seidler AN et al.; on behalf of the International Liaison Committee On Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force. Umbilical cord management for newborns <34 weeks' gestation: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2021; 147 (3) e20200576.

Gabrhelík R et al. Cannabis use during pregnancy and risk of adverse birth outcomes: a longitudinal cohort study. Eur Addict Res 2020. doi: 10.1159/000510821e

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.