The Pandora's Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy.

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMunn, Z.
dc.contributor.authorPollock, D.
dc.contributor.authorBarker, T.H.
dc.contributor.authorStone, J.
dc.contributor.authorStern, C.
dc.contributor.authorAromataris, E.
dc.contributor.authorSchünemann, H.J.
dc.contributor.authorClyne, B.
dc.contributor.authorKhalil, H.
dc.contributor.authorMustafa, R.A.
dc.contributor.authorGodfrey, C.
dc.contributor.authorBooth, A.
dc.contributor.authorTricco, A.C.
dc.contributor.authorPearson, A.
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractHave we, as an evidence-based health community, opened the Pandora's box of evidence synthesis? There now exists a plethora of overlapping evidence synthesis approaches and duplicate, redundant and poor-quality reviews.1-4 After years of advocating for the need for systematic reviews of the evidence, there is a risk that this message been disseminated too widely and has been misinterpreted in this process. We have reached a point where in some fields more reviews exist than clinical trials, where same topic reviews are being conducted in parallel, and evidence syntheses possess limited utility for decision-making because of their poor quality or poor reporting.To paraphrase the late Douglas Altman,5 it is possible we are now at a stage where we need less reviews, better reviews and reviews done for the right reason - as opposed to the current state of mass production (approximately 80 reviews per day)6.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityZachary Munn, Danielle Pollock, Timothy Hugh Barker, Jennifer Stone, Cindy Stern, Edoardo Aromataris, Holger J Schünemann, Barbara Clyne, Hanan Khalil, Reem A Mustafa, Christina Godfrey, Andrew Booth, Andrea C Tricco, Alan Pearson
dc.identifier.citationBMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023; 28(3):148-150
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112065
dc.identifier.issn2515-446X
dc.identifier.issn2515-4478
dc.identifier.orcidMunn, Z. [0000-0002-7091-5842]
dc.identifier.orcidPollock, D. [0000-0002-6604-0609]
dc.identifier.orcidBarker, T.H. [0000-0002-6897-814X]
dc.identifier.orcidStone, J. [0000-0002-3787-6175] [0000-0002-7848-1401]
dc.identifier.orcidStern, C. [0000-0002-0924-5042]
dc.identifier.orcidAromataris, E. [0000-0001-7238-5833]
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2440/138663
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1195676
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Open access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112065
dc.subjectEvidence-Based Practice
dc.subjectSystematic Reviews as Topic
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshEthics, Medical
dc.titleThe Pandora's Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy.
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
hdl_138663.pdf
Size:
184.85 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download

Collections

Public Health publications