Digestive and Liver Disease
Volume 42, Issue 1 , Pages 1-5 , January 2010

Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making?

  • L. Pagliaro

      Affiliations

    • University of Palermo, Italy
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: University of Palermo, Via Trabucco, 180, Palermo 90144, Italy. Tel.: +39 091 6882821/6882111; fax: +39 091 6885111.
    • LP is a Co-Editor of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group.
    • ,
  • P. Bruzzi

      Affiliations

    • Clinical Epidemiology, National Cancer Research Institute, Genoa, Italy
    • ,
  • M. Bobbio

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiology, Ospedale Santa Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy

Received 11 June 2009 ,Accepted 2 July 2009.

References 

  1. Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. J Am Med Assoc. 1995;274:1935–1938
  2. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:278–280
  3. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, et al. A comparison of quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:116–129
  4. Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotszche P. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drug: systematic review. Br Med J. 2006;333:782–785
  5. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews:an independent appraisal. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:589–594
  6. McKinlay RJ, Cotoi C, Wilczynski R, et al. Systematic reviews and original articles differ in relevance, novelty, and use in evidence-based service for physicians: PLUS Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:449–454
  7. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. Br Med J. 1999;319:358–361
  8. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Gorman PN, et al. A taxonomy of generic clinical questions: classification study. Br Med J. 2000;321:429–432
  9. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Chambliss ML, et al. Answering physicians’ clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:217–224
  10. Cullen RJ. In search of evidence: family practitioners’ use of the Internet for clinical information. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90:370–379
  11. McKibbon KA, Fridsma DB. Effectiveness of clinician-selected electronic information resources for answering primary care physicians’ information needs. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:653–659
  12. Alper BS, Stevermer JJ, White DS, et al. Answering family physicians’ clinical questions using elecronic medical databases. J Fam Pract. 2001;50:960–965
  13. Schilling LM, Steiner JF, Lundahl K, et al. Residents’ patient-specific clinical questions: opportunities for evidence-based learning. Acad Med. 2005;80:51–56
  14. McCord G, Smucker WD, Selius BA, et al. Answering questions at the point of care: do residents practice EBM or manage information sources?. Acad Med. 2005;82:298–303
  15. Lai CJ, Aagaard E, Brandenburg S, et al. Brief report: multiprogram evaluation of reading habits of primary care internal medicine residents on ambulatory rotation. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:486–489
  16. Lucas BP, Evans AT, Reilly BM, et al. The impact of evidence on physisicians’ inpatient treatment decisions. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:402–409
  17. Kurstein P, Gluud LL, Willemann M, et al. Agreement between reported use of interventions for liver diseases and research evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Hepatol. 2005;43:984–989
  18. El Dib RP, Atallah AN, Andriolo RB. Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:689–692
  19. Pogue J, Yusuf S. Meta-analysis Duet: overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 1998;351:47–52
  20. Lang A, Edwards N, Fleiszer A. Empty systematic reviews: hidden perils and lessons learned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:595–597
  21. Green S, Higgins JPT, Schunemann HJ, et al. Response to paper by Lang A, Edwards N, and Fleiszer A. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:598–599
  22. Ghany MG, Strader DB, Thomas DL, et al. AASLD Guidelines. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C: an update. Hepatology. 2009;49:1335–1374
  23. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Guideline n. 92. Management of hepatitis C. A national clinical guideline. December 2006.
  24. Sherman M, Shafran S, Burak K, et al. Canadian Consensus Guidelines. Management of chronic hepatitis C: consensus guideline. Can J Gastroenterol. 2007;21(Suppl. C):25C–34C
  25. Badgett R. Why would physicians undervalue reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration?. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:419–421
  26. Laupacis A, Straus S. Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:273–274

PII: S1590-8658(09)00294-1

doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2009.07.003

Digestive and Liver Disease
Volume 42, Issue 1 , Pages 1-5 , January 2010

Article Tools