Medical Scientific Writing & Teaching
✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏Dear colleagues it is our honor to provide you with a professional platform for sharing your interesting scientific writing points, papers and Congress. 📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚 Contact Admin @DrNajmaldinSaki
نمایش بیشتر- مشترکین
- پوشش پست
- ER - نسبت تعامل
در حال بارگیری داده...
در حال بارگیری داده...
از این کانال حمایت کنید تا بتواند استوریها پست کند.
Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily…