2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2011.12.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using Systematic Reviews to Critically Appraise the Scientific Information for the Bovine Veterinarian

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
3
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Reviews have long been used to summarize the body of literature on a given topic (Gordon et al, 2013). Especially in regard to the lack of time that today's doctors and scientists are confronted with (Vandeweerd et al, 2012), reviews can be very useful. Because systematic reviews follow a structured research protocol, they reduce sources of bias at all stages of the review (e.g., inclusion criteria for relevant literature, quality assessment of studies; Sargeant et al, 2006).…”
Section: Evidence-based Medicine and The Role Of Systematic Reviewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reviews have long been used to summarize the body of literature on a given topic (Gordon et al, 2013). Especially in regard to the lack of time that today's doctors and scientists are confronted with (Vandeweerd et al, 2012), reviews can be very useful. Because systematic reviews follow a structured research protocol, they reduce sources of bias at all stages of the review (e.g., inclusion criteria for relevant literature, quality assessment of studies; Sargeant et al, 2006).…”
Section: Evidence-based Medicine and The Role Of Systematic Reviewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15 A semiobjective method of ranking the quality of the studies was performed based on the recent article by Vandeweerd and colleagues. 23 Each article was evaluated and given a score out of 100. The ranking was based on a list of questions provided in the article.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, the pyramid of evidence may lead to an overestimation of the scientific value of publications of low evidence. In fact, this kind of information should be integrated in systematic reviews and critically appraised topics (Vandeweerd et al, 2012a). However, as soon as high quality research results from randomised, controlled clinical trials are available, not too much importance should be attached to data of low evidence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%