|
|
||||||||
Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md. 20892-7344, USA.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the quality of recent reviews in epidemiology. METHODS: All 1995 issues of 7 widely read epidemiology journals were searched to identify reviews. RESULTS: Twenty-nine reviews were identified. Methodology was not specified or incomplete for literature searches in 79% of reviews; the same was true for inclusion criteria in 83% and for combining studies in 62%. More than 60% of the reviews were not methodologically systematic. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to improve the quality of review papers in epidemiology. If systematic methodology were followed more frequently, epidemiologic science and its application could be improved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
K. Dickersin Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind? Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2002; 31(1): 6 - 12. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. B Bracken Commentary: Toward systematic reviews in epidemiology Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2001; 30(5): 954 - 957. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D L Weed Methods in epidemiology and public health: does practice match theory? J Epidemiol Community Health, February 1, 2001; 55(2): 104 - 110. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
D. L Weed Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related Int. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2000; 29(3): 387 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Potischman and D. L Weed Causal criteria in nutritional epidemiology Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, June 1, 1999; 69 (6): 1309S - 1314S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |