Methodological review reveals strategies for evaluating systematic reviews among clinicians, suggesting ways to detect reporting spin and determine study trustworthiness.
Systematic reviews (SRs) provide a solution to handle information overload for busy clinicians by summarising and synthesizing studies on a specific issue. However, because SRs are complicated and often boring to read, the busy or reluctant reader may make do with the abstract. When, as it has been shown, many authors overstate efficacy or understate harm in their abstracts, not consulting the underlying article could be misleading. This means that the prudent reader must have the ability to identify the 'tender points' of SRs to avoid falling for 'spin'. To this end we briefly review the method of SRs and ways to relatively quickly determine trustworthiness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Innes et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: