The Science and Art of Deduction: Complex Systematic Overviews
Authors: John E. Cornell, Christine Laine
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2008)

Editorials20 May 2008The Science and Art of Deduction: Complex Systematic OverviewsJohn E. Cornell, PhD, Associate Editor and Christine Laine, MD, MPH, Senior Deputy EditorJohn E. Cornell, PhD, Associate EditorSearch for more papers by this author and Christine Laine, MD, MPH, Senior Deputy EditorSearch for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00012 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Like all other arts, the science of deduction and analysis is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study … let the inquirer begin by mastering the more elementary problems.—Sherlock Holmes, A Study in ScarletOrganizations that develop clinical practice guidelines increasingly use systematic reviews to evaluate the benefits and harms associated with health care interventions (1). Well-executed systematic reviews efficiently synthesize evidence to answer focused clinical questions and can provide a strong foundation for clinical recommendations. Traditionally, systematic reviews build this foundation with evidence from individual studies. However, Annals has witnessed an increase in the frequency ...References1. Silagy CA, Stead LF, Lancaster T. Use of systematic reviews in clinical practice guidelines: case study of smoking cessation. BMJ. 2001;323:833-6. [PMID: 11597966] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Guirguis-Blake J, Calonge N, Miller T, Siu A, Teutsch S, Whitlock E. Current processes of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: refining evidence-based recommendation development. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:117-22. [PMID: 17576998] LinkGoogle Scholar3. Chou R, Huffman LH. Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:492-504. [PMID: 17909210] LinkGoogle Scholar4. Chou R, Huffman LH. Medications for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:505-14. [PMID: 17909211] LinkGoogle Scholar5. Bjordal JM, Klovning A, Lopes-Martins RA, Roland PD, Joensen J, Slørdal L. Overviews and systematic reviews on low back pain [Letter]. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:779-80. LinkGoogle Scholar6. Ernst E. Overviews and systematic reviews on low back pain [Letter]. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:780-1. LinkGoogle Scholar7. Chou R, Shekelle P, Qaseem A, Owens DK. Overviews and systematic reviews on low back pain [Letter]. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:781-2. LinkGoogle Scholar8. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson KA. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:776-82. LinkGoogle Scholar9. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271-8. [PMID: 1834807] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. [PMID: 17302989] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Cook DJ, Greengold NL, Ellrodt AG, Weingarten SR. The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:210-6. [PMID: 9245227] LinkGoogle Scholar12. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006;332:202-9. [PMID: 16415336] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;:MR000023. [PMID: 18254126] MedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Disclosures: None disclosed.Corresponding Author: Christine Laine, MD, MPH, American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoUsing Existing Systematic Reviews in Complex Systematic Reviews Evelyn P. Whitlock , Jennifer S. Lin , Roger Chou , Paul Shekelle , and Karen A. Robinson Will Running the Numbers First Violate the Principles of Patient-Centered Care? Sam F. Carter Metrics Cited ByA methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of antidepressants effect on low back pain using updated AMSTARBest Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta‐ReviewsMethodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Probiotics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and PouchitisCase Study in OrthopedicsFrom Qualitative Reviews to Umbrella ReviewsRestless Legs SyndromeSuzanne BertischIntegration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needsEffectiveness of Primary Care–Relevant Treatments for Obesity in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceErin S. LeBlanc, MD, MPH, Elizabeth O'Connor, PhD, Evelyn P. Whitlock, MD, MPH, Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, MPH, and Tanya Kapka, MD, MPH 20 May 2008Volume 148, Issue 10Page: 786-788KeywordsHealth careHealth care qualityHeartInformation storage and retrievalLower back painPopulation statisticsResearch quality assessmentSafetySystematic reviewsTreatment guidelines ePublished: 20 May 2008 Issue Published: 20 May 2008 CopyrightCopyright © 2008 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...