PubMed · 10596230
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Ramos. 1999-10-15. [The EMBASE database. Excerpta Medica Database].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10596230/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
STUDY DESIGN: A criteria-based appraisal of review articles on neck pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the methodologic quality, conclusions, and extent of concordance among reviews on the conservative treatment of neck disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: During the past decades there has been an increasing interest in summarizing and analyzing the available evidence on the effectiveness of conservative management of neck pain. Considering the growing number and quality of reviews, consumers may question which reviews to read and believe. METHODS: Computerized bibliographic databases were searched without language restriction. The reviews assessed had been published before January 1998, included neck pain and evaluated conservative therapies, and reported at least one controlled clinical trial. Identification, selection, and quality assessment were performed independently by two investigators. RESULTS: Of the 108 identified articles, 25 review articles were selected, of which 12 were systematic reviews. The reviews differed in their reporting of study population, interventions, and outcomes. Statistical pooling was performed in two high-quality systematic reviews, whereas in other reviews, the investigators explicitly decided not to pool data. The results of the current study show that the concordance among reviews varied. Regarding manipulation and traction, there is inconclusive evidence among reviews. Concordance regarding the effectiveness of other conservative interventions was absent. Many of the reviews displayed major methodologic flaws. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers should consider reports of reviews both carefully and critically, given the wide variety of review methodology, descriptive information, and final conclusions. There is a paucity of evidence from primary studies on neck pain. Therefore, more research is needed to allow systematic reviews to formulate stronger conclusions.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Systematic review (SR) already makes a major contribution to evidence-based healthcare by making the review process transparent and by reducing bias. SR has been successfully applied to observational studies. Radiologists have already begun to make an impact in dentistry by using SR as a decision-making tool. Central to SR is establishment of a research question, selection criteria, a search plan, a literature search, an appraisal of the identified literature by the selection criteria; an analysis and a formulation of recommendations. With regard to the literature search, electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Lilacs), controlled subject headings, exploding and free-text searching, handsearching and the gray literature are discussed.