| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 44, 405-409, Copyright © 1997 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society
ARTICLES |
AF Smith
Department of Anaesthesia, Manchester Royal Infirmary, United Kingdom.
PURPOSE: To see if the authors of review articles in anaesthesia journals are making use of systematic methods in their preparation. METHODS: Twenty-five review articles published in 1995 in four major anaesthesia journals were analysed and compared with standard guidelines for the appraisal of reviews. RESULTS: Of the 25 articles, only 14 stated a clear purpose. Only two revealed the search strategy used to identity articles for the review. None of the reviews featured any type of quality assessment of the primary studies included, or stated what criteria, if any, were used to determine what material was included or excluded. Useful areas for future research were highlighted in only seven reviews. CONCLUSION: There is little evidence that reviews currently accepted for publication in anaesthesia journals have been prepared systematically.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
N. R. Webster Volume 100: The review article Br. J. Anaesth., March 1, 2008; 100(3): 285 - 287. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |