Abstract
Preparing a review entails many judgments. The focus of the review must be decided. Studies that are relevant to the focus of the review must be identified, selected for inclusion and critically appraised. Information must be collected and synthesised from the relevant studies, and conclusions must be drawn. Checklists can help prevent important errors in this process. Reviewers, editors, content experts, and users of reviews all have a role to play in improving the quality of published reviews and promoting the appropriate use of reviews by decisionmakers. It is essential that both providers and users appraise the validity of review articles.
Keywords
Systematic reviewInclusion (mineral)Process (computing)Engineering ethicsManagement scienceQuality (philosophy)Focus (optics)PsychologyComputer scienceMEDLINEPolitical scienceEngineeringEpistemologySocial psychology
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews
Much time and effort are spent on designing primary research studies. Similar care must be given to planning systematic reviews. The review should be based on an important, well...
Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours
Abstract Background Systematic reviews based on the critical appraisal of observational and analytic studies on HIV prevalence and risk factors for HIV transmission among men ha...
Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews
Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Sys...
Information skills training: a systematic review of the literature<sup>*</sup>
Abstract The objectives of this study were to undertake a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of information skills training, to identify effective methods of train...
COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures
PurposeSystematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conduc...
Publication Info
- Year
- 1994
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 309
- Issue
- 6955
- Pages
- 648-651
- Citations
- 478
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
478
OpenAlex
Cite This
Andrew D Oxman
(1994).
Systematic Reviews: Checklists for review articles.
BMJ
, 309
(6955)
, 648-651.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6955.648
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.309.6955.648