The Use of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Trials and Narrative Reviews in Dermatology: Is the Best Evidence Being Used?

Abstract Introduction and objectives Systematic reviews —the most comprehensive type of literature review—should be taken into account before a clinical trial or a narrative review on a topic is undertaken. The objective of this study was to describe the use of systematic reviews in clinical trials...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Actas dermo-sifiliográficas (English ed.) 2014-04, Vol.105 (3), p.295-299
Main Authors: Conde-Taboada, A, Aranegui, B, García-Doval, I, Dávila-Seijo, P, González-Castro, U
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bibliometrics
Bibliometría
Cross-Sectional Studies
Dematología
Dermatology
Evidence-Based Medicine
Humans
Internal Medicine
Literatura de revisión como asunto
Medicina basada en evidencia
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Review Literature as Topic
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Introduction and objectives Systematic reviews —the most comprehensive type of literature review—should be taken into account before a clinical trial or a narrative review on a topic is undertaken. The objective of this study was to describe the use of systematic reviews in clinical trials and narrative reviews in dermatology. Material and methods This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. We selected randomized clinical trials and narrative reviews from the dermatological clinical research journals identified as most important (according to impact factor) and from Actas Dermosifiliográficas , and studied the bibliographies to ascertain whether the authors made reference to existing systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews. Results Of the 72 clinical trials for which a systematic review was available, 24 (33.3%) cited at least 1 review; reference was made to relevant Cochrane reviews in 15.6% of cases and to non-Cochrane reviews in 32%. In the case of the 24 narrative reviews for which a review was available, 10 (41.7%) cited at least 1 review; Cochrane reviews were cited in 20% and non-Cochrane reviews in 35.3%.In the case of Actas Dermosifiliográficas , very few clinical trials were found and the findings for narrative review articles were similar to those observed for the other journals. Conclusions Systematic reviews are not often taken into account by the authors of clinical trials and narrative reviews and this may lead to redundant studies and publications. Authors appear to use Cochrane reviews even less than non-Cochrane reviews and are therefore ignoring one of the main sources of available evidence.
ISSN:1578-2190
1578-2190
DOI:10.1016/j.adengl.2013.10.007