Poor Reviews May Not Give a True Reflection of the Evidence

The predominance of poor systematic reviews in the current research literature is an unfortunate development, particularly in the light of the undoubtedly excellent work of the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of any review depends entirely on the quality of the research work included. A common d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPhysiotherapy Vol. 87; no. 10; pp. 549 - 551
Main Authors Hopwood, Val, White, Peter
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London Elsevier Ltd 01.10.2001
Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
Subjects
Acupuncture
Biological and medical sciences
Medical sciences
meta-analysis
Miscellaneous
Physiotherapy
quality
Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)
Systematic review
meta-analysis
acupuncture
Systematic review
quality
Human
Analgesia
Pain
Folk medicine
Methodology
Oriental medicine
Quality
Acupuncture
Review
Bibliographic review
Metaanalysis
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The predominance of poor systematic reviews in the current research literature is an unfortunate development, particularly in the light of the undoubtedly excellent work of the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of any review depends entirely on the quality of the research work included. A common dismissive comment about this type of review is ‘Garbage in, garbage out'. It is therefore the responsibility of all researchers to make sure that this cannot apply to their own work. A literature review of the effectiveness of four modalities commonly used to relieve pain was published in the August 2001 issue of Physiotherapy. That paper originated as part of an informal workshop held at the World Confederation for Physical Therapy Congress in Japan in May 2000. This should have been made clear in the published format, as several aspects of it, particularly with regard to acupuncture, may cause concern. This opinion piece was originally written as a letter in response to publication of the WCPT report. Unfortunately the shortcomings evident in it are quite common and should lead us to consider very carefully any claims as to clinical efficacy, or lack ot it, in the acupuncture field.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0031-9406
1873-1465
DOI:10.1016/S0031-9406(05)65453-3