schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Systematic reviews identify important methodological flaws in stroke rehabilitation therapy primary studies: review of reviews

A “review of reviews” was undertaken to assess methodological issues in studies evaluating nondrug rehabilitation interventions in stroke patients. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 2000 to January 2008 within the stroke rehabilitat... Full description

Journal Title: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology April 2012, Vol.65(4), pp.358-367
Main Author: Santaguida, Pasqualina
Other Authors: Oremus, Mark , Walker, Kathryn , Wishart, Laurie R , Siegel, Karen Lohmann , Raina, Parminder
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
ID: ISSN: 0895-4356 ; E-ISSN: 1878-5921 ; DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.012
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435611003520
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: elsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2011_10_012
title: Systematic reviews identify important methodological flaws in stroke rehabilitation therapy primary studies: review of reviews
format: Article
creator:
  • Santaguida, Pasqualina
  • Oremus, Mark
  • Walker, Kathryn
  • Wishart, Laurie R
  • Siegel, Karen Lohmann
  • Raina, Parminder
subjects:
  • Methods
  • Systematic Review
  • Clinical Trials
  • Stroke
  • Rehabilitation
  • Reporting
  • Medicine
ispartof: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, April 2012, Vol.65(4), pp.358-367
description: A “review of reviews” was undertaken to assess methodological issues in studies evaluating nondrug rehabilitation interventions in stroke patients. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 2000 to January 2008 within the stroke rehabilitation setting. Electronic searches were supplemented by reviews of reference lists and citations identified by experts. Eligible studies were systematic reviews; excluded citations were narrative reviews or reviews of reviews. Review characteristics and criteria for assessing methodological quality of primary studies within them were extracted. The search yielded 949 English-language citations. We included a final set of 38 systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews, which have a standardized methodology, were generally of higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Most systematic reviews used standardized quality assessment criteria for primary...
language: eng
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0895-4356 ; E-ISSN: 1878-5921 ; DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.012
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 0895-4356
  • 08954356
  • 1878-5921
  • 18785921
url: Link


@attributes
ID1813984105
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordiddoi_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2011_10_012
sourceidelsevier_s
recordidTN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2011_10_012
sourcesystemPC
dbid
0--K
1--M
2.FO
3.~1
41B1
51P~
61RT
71~.
8457
94CK
104G.
117-5
128P~
139JM
149JO
15AABNK
16AAEDT
17AAFJI
18AAKOC
19AAOAW
20AAQFI
21ABBQC
22ABMMH
23ABMZM
24ABYKQ
25ACDAQ
26ACIUM
27ACRLP
28AEKER
29AEVXI
30AFKWA
31AFTJW
32AFXIZ
33AGHFR
34AGUBO
35AGYEJ
36AHHHB
37AIKHN
38AITUG
39AJBFU
40AJOXV
41AJRQY
42AJUYK
43AMFUW
44ANZVX
45AOMHK
46AVARZ
47BLXMC
48BNPGV
49EO8
50EO9
51EP2
52EP3
53FDB
54FGOYB
55FIRID
56FNPLU
57G-Q
58GBLVA
59HEH
60HMK
61HMO
62J1W
63KOM
64LCYCR
65OAUVE
66OD~
67OO0
68P-8
69P-9
70PC.
71PRBVW
72Q38
73R2-
74RPZ
75SAE
76SCC
77SDF
78SDG
79SDP
80SEL
81SES
82SEW
83SSB
84SSH
85SSO
86SSZ
87T5K
88Z5R
89~G-
pqid923575662
galeid281267880
display
typearticle
titleSystematic reviews identify important methodological flaws in stroke rehabilitation therapy primary studies: review of reviews
creatorSantaguida, Pasqualina ; Oremus, Mark ; Walker, Kathryn ; Wishart, Laurie R ; Siegel, Karen Lohmann ; Raina, Parminder
ispartofJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, April 2012, Vol.65(4), pp.358-367
identifier
subjectMethods ; Systematic Review ; Clinical Trials ; Stroke ; Rehabilitation ; Reporting ; Medicine
descriptionA “review of reviews” was undertaken to assess methodological issues in studies evaluating nondrug rehabilitation interventions in stroke patients. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 2000 to January 2008 within the stroke rehabilitation setting. Electronic searches were supplemented by reviews of reference lists and citations identified by experts. Eligible studies were systematic reviews; excluded citations were narrative reviews or reviews of reviews. Review characteristics and criteria for assessing methodological quality of primary studies within them were extracted. The search yielded 949 English-language citations. We included a final set of 38 systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews, which have a standardized methodology, were generally of higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Most systematic reviews used standardized quality assessment criteria for primary...
languageeng
source
version6
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
backlink$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435611003520$$EView_record_in_ScienceDirect_(Access_to_full_text_may_be_restricted)
search
creatorcontrib
0Santaguida, Pasqualina
1Oremus, Mark
2Walker, Kathryn
3Wishart, Laurie R
4Siegel, Karen Lohmann
5Raina, Parminder
titleSystematic reviews identify important methodological flaws in stroke rehabilitation therapy primary studies: review of reviews
description

A “review of reviews” was undertaken to assess methodological issues in studies evaluating nondrug rehabilitation interventions in stroke patients.

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 2000 to January 2008 within the stroke rehabilitation setting. Electronic searches were supplemented by reviews of reference lists and citations identified by experts. Eligible studies were systematic reviews; excluded citations were narrative reviews or reviews of reviews. Review characteristics and criteria for assessing methodological quality of primary studies within them were extracted.

The search yielded 949 English-language citations. We included a final set of 38 systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews, which have a standardized methodology, were generally of higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Most systematic reviews used standardized quality assessment criteria for primary...

subject
0Methods
1Systematic Review
2Clinical Trials
3Stroke
4Rehabilitation
5Reporting
6Medicine
general
0English
1Elsevier Inc
210.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.012
3ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
4ScienceDirect Journals (Elsevier)
sourceidelsevier_s
recordidelsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2011_10_012
issn
00895-4356
108954356
21878-5921
318785921
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2012
addtitleJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
searchscope
0elsevier_full
1elsevier2
scope
0elsevier_full
1elsevier2
lsr44$$EView_record_in_ScienceDirect_(Access_to_full_text_may_be_restricted)
tmp01ScienceDirect Journals (Elsevier)
tmp02
0--K
1--M
2.FO
3.~1
41B1
51P~
61RT
71~.
8457
94CK
104G.
117-5
128P~
139JM
149JO
15AABNK
16AAEDT
17AAFJI
18AAKOC
19AAOAW
20AAQFI
21ABBQC
22ABMMH
23ABMZM
24ABYKQ
25ACDAQ
26ACIUM
27ACRLP
28AEKER
29AEVXI
30AFKWA
31AFTJW
32AFXIZ
33AGHFR
34AGUBO
35AGYEJ
36AHHHB
37AIKHN
38AITUG
39AJBFU
40AJOXV
41AJRQY
42AJUYK
43AMFUW
44ANZVX
45AOMHK
46AVARZ
47BLXMC
48BNPGV
49EO8
50EO9
51EP2
52EP3
53FDB
54FGOYB
55FIRID
56FNPLU
57G-Q
58GBLVA
59HEH
60HMK
61HMO
62J1W
63KOM
64LCYCR
65OAUVE
66OD~
67OO0
68P-8
69P-9
70PC.
71PRBVW
72Q38
73R2-
74RPZ
75SAE
76SCC
77SDF
78SDG
79SDP
80SEL
81SES
82SEW
83SSB
84SSH
85SSO
86SSZ
87T5K
88Z5R
89~G-
startdate20120401
enddate20120431
lsr40Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, April 2012, Vol.65 (4), pp.358-367
doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.012
citationpf 358 pt 367 vol 65 issue 4
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[galeid, pqid]
sort
titleSystematic reviews identify important methodological flaws in stroke rehabilitation therapy primary studies: review of reviews
authorSantaguida, Pasqualina ; Oremus, Mark ; Walker, Kathryn ; Wishart, Laurie R ; Siegel, Karen Lohmann ; Raina, Parminder
creationdate20120400
lso0120120400
facets
frbrgroupid7839455483880306520
frbrtype5
newrecords20190904
languageeng
topic
0Methods
1Systematic Review
2Clinical Trials
3Stroke
4Rehabilitation
5Reporting
6Medicine
collectionScienceDirect (Elsevier)
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Santaguida, Pasqualina
1Oremus, Mark
2Walker, Kathryn
3Wishart, Laurie R
4Siegel, Karen Lohmann
5Raina, Parminder
jtitleJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
creationdate2012
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Santaguida
1Oremus
2Walker
3Wishart
4Siegel
5Raina
aufirst
0Pasqualina
1Mark
2Kathryn
3Laurie R
4Karen Lohmann
5Parminder
auinitP
auinit1P
au
0Santaguida, Pasqualina
1Oremus, Mark
2Walker, Kathryn
3Wishart, Laurie R
4Siegel, Karen Lohmann
5Raina, Parminder
atitleSystematic reviews identify important methodological flaws in stroke rehabilitation therapy primary studies: review of reviews
jtitleJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
risdate201204
volume65
issue4
spage358
epage367
pages358-367
issn0895-4356
eissn1878-5921
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstract

A “review of reviews” was undertaken to assess methodological issues in studies evaluating nondrug rehabilitation interventions in stroke patients.

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 2000 to January 2008 within the stroke rehabilitation setting. Electronic searches were supplemented by reviews of reference lists and citations identified by experts. Eligible studies were systematic reviews; excluded citations were narrative reviews or reviews of reviews. Review characteristics and criteria for assessing methodological quality of primary studies within them were extracted.

The search yielded 949 English-language citations. We included a final set of 38 systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews, which have a standardized methodology, were generally of higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Most systematic reviews used standardized quality assessment criteria for primary...

pubElsevier Inc
doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.012
lad01Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
date2012-04