Skip to content
RDL
Network
Ekosistem
Uygulama değiştir
EN
Hakkımızda
SSS
Giriş yap
Başla
The Medical Review Article Revisited: Has the Science Improved? — Finlay A. McAlister (1999) | RDL Network
Back
Cite
Save
Save for later
Share
Home
Publications
The Medical Review Article Revisited: Has the Science Improved?
Shared by
David Moher
The Medical Review Article Revisited: Has the Science Improved?
Article
1999
en
Authors
+4 more
FM
Finlay A. McAlister
HC
Heather D. Clark
CW
Carl van Walraven
Abstract
1 min read
The methodologic quality of clinical review articles is highly variable, and many of these articles do not specify systematic methods.
Discussion
(0)
Sign in
to like and join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.
Related publications
Article
2023
The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review
Lesley Uttley
,
Daniel Quintana
,
Paul Montgomery
,
Christopher Carroll
,
Matthew J. Page
,
Louise Falzon
,
Anthea Sutton
,
David Moher
Article
2015
Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis
David Moher
Article
2021
Quality-related fault detection and diagnosis: a technical review and summary
Guang Wang
,
Hamid Reza Karimi
Elsevier eBooks
Preprint
2020
Data Science in Economics: Comprehensive Review of Advanced Machine Learning and Deep Learning Methods
Saeed Nosratabadi
,
Amir Mosavi
,
Puhong Duan
,
Pedram Ghamisi
,
Ferdinánd Filip
,
Shahab S. Band
,
Uwe Reuter
,
Jo�ão Luiz Calmon
,
Amir Gandomi
Article
2014
How to Read a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Apply the Results to Patient Care
M. Hassan Murad
,
Víctor M. Montori
,
John P A Ioannidis
,
Roman Jaeschke
,
P.J. Devereaux
,
Kameshwar Prasad
,
Ignacio Neumann
,
Alonso Carrasco‐Labra
,
Thomas Agoritsas
,
Rose Hatala
,
Maureen O. Meade
,
Peter Wyer
,
Deborah J. Cook
,
Gordon Guyatt
.webp){kind=small}
Discussion(0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.