{"id":420,"date":"2013-03-20T22:30:47","date_gmt":"2013-03-20T21:30:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc-archimedes\/?p=420"},"modified":"2013-03-20T22:30:47","modified_gmt":"2013-03-20T21:30:47","slug":"just-looking-at-it-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/2013\/03\/20\/just-looking-at-it-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Just looking at it again."},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft\" alt=\"\" src=\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/5\/56\/Answer_to_Life.png\" width=\"193\" height=\"118\" \/>Systematic, meta-analytic, comprehensive, rapid, short-cut, traditional, scholarly, critical, scoping, mapping or mixed?<\/p>\n<p>How many words do we need to describe reviews?<\/p>\n<p>14 (disappointingly)<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>That&#8217;s the answer according to an<a href=\"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x\/full\"> open access summary paper from the University of Sheffield, UK<\/a>. They used an approach to classify reviews based on categories of search \/ appraisal \/ synthesis and analysis and have come up with a series of groups of review. The ones we&#8217;re seeing most of in medical practice are the rapid reviews (like Archi), the full on systematic review &amp;\/or meta-analysis, and some scoping reviews (saying what science exists in specific clinical question zones) and umbrella reviews that combine the results of a few other systematic reviews. It&#8217;s pretty helpful when you&#8217;re looking at a paper with a search strategy (usually in a box somewhere on p3) to try to type it &#8211; it may be that this knowledge will drive you to a full or only partial appraisal of the paper you&#8217;ve sought out.<\/p>\n<p>Now, of course, there is a further and also pressing issue: should we be undertaking systematic reviews at all? But that may be another post &#8230;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Archi<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<div><a href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/19490148\">http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/19490148<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!--TrendMD v2.4.8--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Systematic, meta-analytic, comprehensive, rapid, short-cut, traditional, scholarly, critical, scoping, mapping or mixed? How many words do we need to describe reviews? 14 (disappointingly) [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p><a class=\"btn btn-secondary understrap-read-more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/2013\/03\/20\/just-looking-at-it-again\/\">Read More&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-archimedes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}