CJEM Articles: evidence-based medicine
Displaying 1-6 of 6 results
-
November
2009
11
6
James Ducharme
-
July
2006
8
4
Andrew Worster, Gregory Hall, Patrick H.P. Tang
-
January
2004
6
1
Andrew Worster, Jeffrey Freeman
-
November
2003
5
6
Brian H. Rowe, Peter J. Zed, Peter S. Loewen, Riyad B. Abu-Laban
Reviews of the medical literature have always been an important resource for physicians. Increasingly, qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews (SRs) have replaced the traditional "narrative review" as a means of capturing and summarizing current evidence on a topic or, when possible, answering a specific clinical question. This paper is Part II of a 2-part series designed to provide emergency physicians with the background necessary to locate, critically evaluate and interpret SRs. The paper expands on the critical appraisal principles discussed in Part I by focusing on quality assessment, data synthesis and interpretation of results. To illustrate key points and facilitate readability, examples from the emergency medicine literature have been included and technical details have been kept to a minimum. The references, however, are comprehensive and provide a resource for readers seeking further information.
-
September
2003
5
5
Brian H. Rowe, Peter J. Zed, Peter S. Loewen, Riyad B. Abu-Laban
Reviews of the medical literature have always been an important resource for physicians. Increasingly, qualitative and quantitative "systematic reviews" have replaced the traditional "narrative review" as a means of capturing and summarizing current evidence on a topic or, when possible, answering a specific clinical question. This paper is part one of a two-part series designed to provide emergency physicians with the background necessary to locate, critically evaluate and interpret systematic reviews. The paper provides a brief background on systematic reviews and general principles on locating and critically appraising them. To facilitate readability, examples from the emergency medicine literature have been included for illustrative purposes and technical details have been kept to a minimum. The references, however, are comprehensive and provide a resource for readers seeking further information.
-
July
2001
3
3
Andrew Worster, Brian H. Rowe
The authors of studies often report their results using abbreviated terms such as RR, OR, ARR, RRR and NNT. These terms are quantities that express the strength of association between the dependent and independent variables and are collectively referred to as measures of association. The similarity between these measures and the multiple terms by which each is referred can be confusing. The purpose of this article is to explain in a straightforward manner the purpose, derivation, and limitations of some of the more commonly used categorical measures of association, including relative risk, odds ratio, absolute and relative risk reduction and number needed to treat, using results from recent emergency medicine studies published by Canadian researchers.
