Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Systematic Review”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2026

Effectiveness of exercise-based prehabilitation on pre and postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing cardiac surgery-An umbrella review of systematic reviews.

AIMS: Individuals undergoing cardiac surgery are becoming older, frailer, and less mobile. Prehabilitation has shown to improve postoperative outcomes by optimizing preoperative physical function. This umbrella review aims to pool the systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of exercise-based prehabilitation in cardiac surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: The review followed the PRIOR checklist. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane library, Scopus, Web of science, ProQuest NAHD, ProQuest HMC, Open Grey and MedNar were searched using relevant keywords from inception to 16th December, 2024. Two reviewers screened and extracted data from the included reviews and assessed primary study overlap with the corrected covered area. Methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 scale. Certainty of evidence was assessed using a previously developed criteria for overview of reviews. Six systematic reviews with 30 unique trials and 6705 participants were included. The interventions assessed included breathing exercises, inspiratory muscle training, and exercise training. Prehabilitation reduced length of hospital stay, postoperative pulmonary complications, and clinically improved functional capacity with a very low to moderate certainty of evidence. However, there was uncertainty regarding the effects pertaining to adverse events and quality of life. The methodological quality of all reviews was critically low. The primary trials scored poorly in the domains of selection and detection bias. CONCLUSION: Exercise-based prehabilitation might reduce length of hospital stay and postoperative complications, and improve functional capacity. However, the quality of evidence is poor, and individual discretion is required before implementing them into practice. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023480100.

Humans↗
PubMed1994

Rationale for systematic reviews.

Systematic literature reviews including meta-analyses are invaluable scientific activities. The rationale for such reviews is well established. Health care providers, researchers, and policy makers are inundated with unmanageable amounts of information; they need systematic reviews to efficiently integrate existing information and provide data for rational decision making. Systematic reviews establish whether scientific findings are consistent and can be generalised across populations, settings, and treatment variations, or whether findings vary significantly by particular subsets. Meta-analyses in particular can increase power and precision of estimates of treatment effects and exposure risks. Finally, explicit methods used in systematic reviews limit bias and, hopefully, will improve reliability and accuracy of conclusions.

Meta-Analysis as Topic↗
PubMed2005

Effects of continuing medical education on improving physician clinical care and patient health: a review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of physician continuing medical education (CME) is to help them keep abreast of advances in patient care, to accept new more-beneficial care, and discontinue use of existing lower-benefit diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The goal of this review was to examine effectiveness of current CME tools and techniques in changing physician clinical practices and improving patient health outcomes. METHODS: Results of published systematic reviews were examined to determine the spectrum from most- to least-effective CME techniques. We searched multiple databases, from 1 January 1984 to 30 October 2004, for English-language, peer-reviewed meta-analyses and other systematic reviews of CME programs that alter physician behavior and/or patient outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-six reviews met inclusion criteria, that is, were either formal meta-analyses or other systematic reviews. Interactive techniques (audit/feedback, academic detailing/outreach, and reminders) are the most effective at simultaneously changing physician care and patient outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines and opinion leaders are less effective. Didactic presentations and distributing printed information only have little or no beneficial effect in changing physician practice. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the most-effective CME techniques have been proven, use of least-effective ones predominates. Such use of ineffective CME likely reduces patient care quality and raises costs for all, the worst of both worlds.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2026

The application of artificial intelligence in healthcare practice: A mapping review of systematic reviews.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare practice, with growing evidence supporting its use in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment planning, and operational decision-making. The proliferation of systematic reviews in recent years underscores the need for an updated synthesis of the literature to inform research, policy, and practice. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and CINAHL for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2019 and February 2026. Eligible reviews focused on AI applications in healthcare practice, were peer-reviewed, and written in English. A total of 368 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Publication volume increased steadily, peaking in 2025. AI research was concentrated in high-density domains, such as radiology, oncology, and critical care. Across reviews, diagnostic imaging, electronic health record (EHR) data, and biomarkers/laboratory results accounted for 68% of training data sources, though newer data types, such as wearable device and sensor data, emerged from 2022 onward. Diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment comprised over 80% of AI applications, with novel uses emerging in recent years, such as AI-assisted clinical documentation (e.g., ambient documentation tools) and patient education. Ethical concerns were reported in 78.5% of reviews, with privacy, model accuracy, data and algorithmic bias, and explainability as recurrent themes. The proportion of reviews reporting ethical concerns increased from 2021 to 2025. AI applications in healthcare are expanding in scope, diversifying in data sources, and evolving toward novel clinical and operational uses. The human-centered AI or augmented intelligence paradigm, integrating computational precision with clinical expertise, holds significant promise but will require parallel advances in governance, regulatory frameworks, and ethical oversight to ensure safe adoption.

Artificial Intelligence↗
PubMed2005

Integrated care programmes for chronically ill patients: a review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate effectiveness, definitions, and components of integrated care programmes for chronically ill patients on the basis of systematic reviews. DESIGN: Literature review from January 1996 to May 2004. MAIN MEASURES: Definitions and components of integrated care programmes and all effects reported on the quality of care. RESULTS: Searches in the Medline and Cochrane databases identified 13 systematic reviews of integrated care programmes for chronically ill patients. Despite considerable heterogeneity in interventions, patient populations, and processes and outcomes of care, integrated care programmes seemed to have positive effects on the quality of patient care. No consistent definitions were present for the management of patients with chronic illnesses. In all the reviews the aims of integrated care programmes were very similar, namely reducing fragmentation and improving continuity and coordination of care, but the focus and content of the programmes differed widely. The most common components of integrated care programmes were self-management support and patient education, often combined with structured clinical follow-up and case management; a multidisciplinary patient care team; multidisciplinary clinical pathways and feedback, reminders, and education for professionals. CONCLUSION: Integrated care programmes seemed to have positive effects on the quality of care. However, integrated care programmes have widely varying definitions and components and failure to recognize these variations leads to inappropriate conclusions about the effectiveness of these programmes and to inappropriate application of research results. To compare programmes and better understand the (cost) effectiveness of the programmes, consistent definitions must be used and component interventions must be well described.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed1999

Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews of economic evaluations. Amantadine and rimantadine in the prevention and treatment of influenza.

Cochrane reviews provide standardised and regularly updated syntheses of evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. We present the rationale for, and some of the results of, a Cochrane review of the effects of amantadine and rimantadine in the prevention and treatment of influenza. The estimates of effect will be incorporated into a decision-making model for tackling influenza in healthy adults (i.e. soldiers in the British Army). Our systematic review of the economics of influenza also provides the international context within which economic data can be interpreted and assessed as a preliminary to an economic evaluation comparing alternative prevention and treatment strategies. Systematic reviews provide powerful and relatively inexpensive evidence of effects and tolerability, which is more likely to convince decision-makers than evidence from single studies. Additionally, they can be used to focus clinical trial questions and provide strategic insight regarding the state-of-the-art knowledge of effects and economics of compounds in a specific field.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals.

This study set out to compare Cochrane reviews and reviews published in paper-based journals. Two assessment tools were used to collect the data, a 23-item checklist developed by Sacks and a nine-item scale developed by Oxman. Cochrane reviews were found to be better at reporting some items and paper-based review at reporting others. The overall quality was found to be low. This represents a serious situation because clinicians, health policy makers, and consumers are often told that systematic reviews represent "the best available evidence." In the period since this study, the Cochrane Collaboration has taken steps to improve the quality of its reviews through, for example, more thorough prepublication refereeing, developments in the training and support offered to reviewers, and improvements in the system for postpublication peer review. In addition, the use of evidence-based criteria (i.e., the QUOROM statement) for reporting systematic reviews may help further to improve their quality.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2006

Clinical review: a systematic review of corticosteroid use in infections.

Traditional teaching suggests that corticosteroids should be avoided during acute infectious episodes for fear of compromising the immune response. However, the outcome benefit shown through steroid administration in early septic shock implies this paranoia may be misplaced. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature to identify the current strength of evidence for the use of corticosteroids in specified infections, and to make appropriate graded recommendations.

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗
PubMed2003

What are the most effective ways of improving population health through transport interventions? Evidence from systematic reviews.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To review systematic review literature that describes the effectiveness of transport interventions in improving population health. METHODS: Systematic review methodology was used to evaluate published and unpublished systematic reviews in any language that described the measured health effects of any mode of transport intervention. MAIN RESULTS: 28 systematic reviews were identified. The highest quality reviews indicate that the most effective transport interventions to improve health are health promotion campaigns (to prevent childhood injuries, to increase bicycle and motorcycle helmet use, and to promote children's car seat and seatbelt use), traffic calming, and specific legislation against drink driving. Driver improvement and education courses are associated with increases in crash involvement and violations. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews are able to provide evidence about effective ways of improving health through transport related interventions and also identify well intentioned but harmful interventions. Valuable additional information may exist in primary studies and systematic reviews have a role in evaluating and synthesising their findings.

Accidents, Traffic↗
PubMed1996

How to systematically review the medical literature.

In contrast to traditional narrative reviews, systematic reviews are true hypothesis-driven research. Meta-analysis is a form of systematic review in which studies are selected and combined by use of a predefined protocol to reduce bias and subjectivity. A sensitivity analysis shows how results vary through the use of different assumptions, tests, and criteria. The most valid synthesis of information occurs when published and unpublished materials are subjected to the same rigorous evaluation and when results are calculated with and without unpublished sources of data. A good systematic review captures the reader's attention through a skillful blend of numbers and narrative and qualifies for publication as original research in a peer-reviewed journal. Otolaryngologists have published systematic reviews of varying quality since 1990. This article should help improve the quality and validity of future efforts.

Bias↗
PubMed2001

The mind of a failing heart: a systematic review of the association between congestive heart failure and cognitive functioning.

BACKGROUND: Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a frequent complication of most diseases of the heart. CHF is associated with impairment in several aspects of the quality of life of patients, including mood and cognitive performance. Early reports indicated that patients with CHF display deficits in memory and other intellectual abilities, although the clinical relevance of these findings remains unclear. AIM: We reviewed systematically the medical literature with the aim of clarifying the association between CHF and cognitive functioning. METHODS: Systematic review of Medline database for studies published between 1966 and June 2000 using the following key words: congestive heart failure, cognition, cognitive disorders, memory, memory disorders, short-term memory, attention. RESULTS: Thirteen studies reported cognitive information on patients with CHF, but only five met inclusion criteria for systematic review. Three reports described attention (total number of subjects = 369 patients and 882 controls) and memory scores (total number of subjects = 247 patients and 748 controls), two studies reported measures of general cognitive functioning (total number of subjects = 203 patients and 704 controls) and one reported the rate of cognitive impairment (total number of subjects = 88 patients and 987 controls). Pooled analysis indicated that CHF is associated with a pattern of generalized cognitive impairment that includes memory and attention deficits. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present review highlight the enormous paucity of systematic information about the association between CHF and cognitive functioning, with only five studies reporting data suitable for analysis. We expect that new case-control and cohort studies will be designed to confirm the presence of cognitive impairment in patients with CHF and trust that this information will improve the management of CHF patients and our understanding of the mechanisms associated with cognitive decline in later life.

Attention↗
PubMed2005

Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Failure to be comprehensive can distort the results of a systematic review. Conversely, extensive searches may yield unmanageable number of citations of which only few may be relevant. Knowledge of usefulness of each source of information may help to tailor search strategies in systematic reviews. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prevalence/incidence of maternal mortality and morbidities from 1997 to 2002. The search strategy included electronic databases, hand searching, screening of reference lists, congress abstract books, contacting experts active in the field and web sites from less developed countries. We evaluated the effectiveness of each source of data and discuss limitations and implications for future research on this topic. RESULTS: Electronic databases identified 64098 different citations of which 2093 were included. Additionally 487 citations were included from other sources. MEDLINE had the highest yield identifying about 62% of the included citations. BIOSIS was the most precise with 13.2% of screened citations included. Considering electronic citations alone (2093), almost 20% were identified uniquely by MEDLINE (400), 7.4% uniquely by EMBASE (154), and 5.6% uniquely by LILACS (117). About 60% of the electronic citations included were identified by two or more databases. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the need for extending the search to other sources beyond well-known electronic databases in systematic reviews of maternal mortality and morbidity prevalence/incidence. These include regional databases such as LILACS and other topic specific sources such as hand searching of relevant journals not indexed in electronic databases. Guidelines for search strategies for prevalence/incidence studies need to be developed.

Female↗
PubMed2002

Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Editorial peer review is widely used to select submissions to journals for publication and is presumed to improve their usefulness. Sufficient research on peer review has been published to consider a synthesis of its effects. METHODS: To examine the evidence of the effects of editorial peer-review processes in biomedical journals, we conducted electronic and full-text searches of private and public databases to June 2000 and corresponded with the World Association of Medical Editors, European Association of Science Editors, Council of Science Editors, and researchers in the field to locate comparative studies assessing the effects of any stage of the peer-review process that made some attempt to control for confounding. Nineteen of 135 identified studies fulfilled our criteria. Because of the diversity of study questions, methods, and outcomes, we did not pool results. RESULTS: Nine studies considered the effects of concealing reviewer/author identity. Four studies suggested that concealing reviewer or author identity affected review quality (mostly positively); however, methodological limitations make their findings ambiguous, and other studies' results were either negative or inconclusive. One study suggested that a statistical checklist can improve report quality, but another failed to find an effect of publishing another checklist. One study found no evidence that training referees improves performance and another showed increased interrater reliability; both used open designs, making interpretation difficult. Two studies of how journals communicate with reviewers did not demonstrate any effect on review quality. One study failed to show reviewer bias, but the findings may not be generalizable. One nonrandomized study compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed vs other journals. Two studies showed that editorial processes make articles more readable and improve the quality of reporting, but the findings may have limited generalizability to other journals. CONCLUSIONS: Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain.

Peer Review, Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Systematic review of 10 years of systematic reviews in prosthodontics.

PURPOSE: The objective was to make an inventory of systematic reviews in the field of prosthodontics and to assess the strength of evidence yielded by these studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature was searched using MEDLINE (keywords "dental" in subset combined with "meta-analysis" in publication type, and "dental" in subset combined with "systematic review"). Reviews related to prosthodontics were selected by hand. Analogies between the reviewing processes were assessed, and the quality was described. RESULTS: There were 138 articles qualifying as either systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Of these, 13 reported pooled data on prosthodontic subjects. Two pairs of reviews were identified as dealing with comparable items; the others described all different subjects. In one pair, the studies reviewed the survival of conventional fixed partial dentures (FPD); the other pair was on single-tooth implants. The pooled results within each pair were almost equal. For the FPD reviews, 65% of the unity of studies was included in both reviews. For the single-tooth implants, 29% of the potentially useful studies were included in both reviews. The data pooling processes showed the same pattern. One large study included in both reviews explained a large part of the similarity of the combined survivals of FPDs. For the single-tooth implant reviews, the largest common study explained 20% of the similarity. CONCLUSION: Although there were methodologic differences between the paired reviews, they produced similar results. The outcomes of the evaluated reviews may be used as prognostic data; however, they cannot be used for direct comparison of treatments.

Dental Implants, Single-Tooth↗
PubMed2006

A series of systematic reviews to inform a decision analysis for sampling and treating infected diabetic foot ulcers.

OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the evidence on the performance of diagnostic tests used to identify infection in diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and of interventions to treat infected DFUs. To use estimates derived from the systematic reviews to create a decision analytic model in order to identify the most effective method of diagnosing and treating infection and to identify areas of research that would lead to large reductions in clinical uncertainty. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases covering period from inception of the database to November 2002. REVIEW METHODS: Selected studies were assessed against validated criteria and described in a narrative review. The structure of a decision analytic model was derived for two groups of patients in whom diagnostic tests were likely to be used. RESULTS: Three studies that investigated the performance of diagnostic tests for infection on populations including people with DFUs found that there was no evidence that single items on a clinical examination checklist were reliable in identifying infection in DFUs, that wound swabs perform poorly against wound biopsies, and that semi-quantitative analysis of wound swabs may be a useful alternative to quantitative analysis. However, few people with DFUs were included, so it was not possible to tell whether diagnostic performance differs for DFUs relative to wounds of other aetiologies. Twenty-three studies investigated the effectiveness (n = 23) or cost-effectiveness (n = 2) of antimicrobial agents for DFUs. Eight studied intravenous antibiotics, five oral antibiotics, four different topical agents such as dressings, four subcutaneous granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), one evaluated oral and topical Ayurvedic preparations and one compared topical sugar versus antibiotics versus standard care. The majority of trials were underpowered and were too dissimilar to be pooled. There was no strong evidence for recommending any particular antimicrobial agent for the prevention of amputation, resolution of infection or ulcer healing. Topical pexiganan cream may be as effective as oral antibiotic treatment with ofloxacin for the resolution of local infection. Ampicillin and sulbactam were less costly than imipenem and cilastatin, a growth factor (G-CSF) was less costly than standard care and cadexomer iodine dressings may be less costly than daily dressings. A decision analytic model was derived for two groups of people, those for whom diagnostic testing would inform treatment--people with ulcers which do not appear infected but whose ulcer is not progressing despite optimal concurrent treatment--and those in whom a first course of antibiotics (prescribed empirically) have failed. There was insufficient information from the systematic reviews or interviews with experts to populate the model with transition probabilities for the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis of infection in DFUs. Similarly, there was insufficient information on the probabilities of healing, amputation or death in the intervention studies for the two populations of interest. Therefore, we were unable to run the model to inform the most effective diagnostic and treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is too weak to be able to draw reliable implications for practice. This means that, in terms of diagnosis, infection in DFUs cannot be reliably identified using clinical assessment. This has implications for determining which patients need formal diagnostic testing for infection, on whether empirical treatment with antibiotics (before the results of diagnostic tests are available) leads to better outcomes, and on identifying the optimal methods of diagnostic testing. With respect to treatment, it is not known whether treatment with systemic or local antibiotics leads to better outcomes or whether any particular agent is more effective. Limited evidence suggests that both G-CSF and cadexomer iodine dressings may be less expensive than 'standard' care, that ampicillin/sulbactam may be less costly than imipenem/cilastatin, and that an unlicensed cream (pexiganan) may be as effective as oral ofloxacin. Further research is needed to ascertain the characteristics of infection in people with DFUs that influence healing and amputation outcomes, to determine whether detecting infection prior to treatment offers any benefit over empirical therapy, and to establish the most effective and cost-effective methods for detecting infection, as well as the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial interventions for DFU infection.

Ampicillin↗
PubMed1999

Rational decision-making in mental health: the role of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: "Systematic reviews" have come to be recognized as the most rigorous method of summarizing confusing and often contradictory primary research in a transparent and reproducible manner. Their greatest impact has been in the summarization of epidemiological literature - particularly that relating to clinical effectiveness. Systematic reviews also have a potential to inform rational decision-making in healthcare policy and to form a component of economic evaluation. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This article aims to introduce the rationale behind systematic reviews and, using examples from mental health, to introduce the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews, particularly in informing mental health policy and economic evaluation. METHODS: Examples are selected from recent controversies surrounding the introduction of new psychiatric drugs (anti-depressants and anti-schizophrenia drugs) and methods of delivering psychiatric care in the community (case management and assertive community treatment). The potential for systematic reviews to (i) produce best estimates of clinical efficacy and effectiveness, (ii) aid economic evaluation and policy decision-making and (iii) highlight gaps in the primary research knowledge base are discussed. Lastly examples are selected from outside mental health to show how systematic reviews have a potential to be explicitly used in economic and health policy evaluation. RESULTS: Systematic reviews produce the best estimates of clinical efficacy, which can form an important component of economic evaluation. Importantly, serious methodological flaws and areas of uncertainty in the primary research literature are identified within an explicit framework. Summary indices of clinical effectiveness can be produced, but it is difficult to produce such summary indices of cost effectiveness by pooling economic data from primary studies. Modelling is commonly used in economic and policy evaluation. Here, systematic reviews can provide the best estimates of effectiveness and, importantly, highlight areas of uncertainty that can be used in "sensitivity analysis". DISCUSSION: Systematic reviews are an important recent methodological advance, the potential for which has only begun to be realized in mental health. This use of systematic reviews is probably most advanced in producing critical summaries of clinical effectiveness data. Systematic reviews cannot produce valid and believable conclusions when the primary research literature is of poor quality. An important function of systematic reviews will be in highlighting this poor quality research which is of little use in mental health decision making. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH PROVISION: Health care provision should be both clinically and cost effective. Systematic reviews are a key component in ensuring that this goal is achieved. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Systematic reviews have potential to inform health policy. Examples presented show that health policy is often made without due consideration of the research evidence. Systematic reviews can provide robust and believable answers, which can help inform rational decision-making. Importantly, systematic reviews can highlight the need for important primary research and can inform the design of this research such that it provides answers that will help in forming healthcare policy. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Systematic reviews should precede costly (and often unnecessary) primary research. Many areas of health policy and practice have yet to be evaluated using systematic review methodology. Methods for the summarization of economic data are methodologically complex and deserve further research

Journal Article↗
PubMed2006

Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane collaboration aims to produce high-quality systematic reviews. It is not known whether the methods used in producing Cochrane Skin Group (CSG) reviews result in higher quality reviews than other systematic reviews in dermatology. OBJECTIVES: To determine how the methodological quality of dermatological CSG reviews published in The Cochrane Library and in peer-reviewed journals compare with non-Cochrane systematic reviews. METHODS: Two blinded investigators independently assessed review quality using the 10-item Oxman and Guyatt scale. RESULTS: Thirty-eight systematic reviews (17 Cochrane reviews published in The Cochrane Library, 11 Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals and 10 non-Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals) were examined. The Cochrane Library reviews included quality of life (11/17 vs. 1/10, P = 0.014) and adverse outcomes (14/17 vs. 2/10, P = 0.003) more often than non-Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. Cochrane reviews published in both peer-reviewed journals and The Cochrane Library were more likely to include comprehensive search strategies (11/11 and 17/17 vs. 6/10, P-values = 0.04 and 0.01), take steps to minimize selection bias (11/11 and 16/17 vs. 3/10, P-values = 0.003 and 0.001) and appropriately assess the validity of all included trials (10/11 and 16/17 vs. 4/10, P-values = 0.04 and 0.007) than non-Cochrane reviews. Overall, Cochrane reviews published both in peer-reviewed journals and in The Cochrane Library were assigned higher quality scores by reviewers than non-Cochrane reviews (median = 6.0 and 6.5 vs. 4.5, P-values = 0.01 and 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The Cochrane Library systematic review methodology leads to higher quality reviews on dermatological topics.

Dermatology↗