We encourage authors to review the literature and, wherever possible, rate key points of evidence. 1, 2 Some articles may not be appropriate for an evidence-based format because of the nature of the topic, the slant of the article, a lack of sufficient supporting evidence, or other factors. This article may be read as a companion piece to a previous article and accompanying editorial about reading and evaluating clinical review articles. In this article, we present guidelines for writing an evidence-based clinical review article, especially one designed for continuing medical education (CME) and incorporating CME objectives into its format. Such evidence-based updates provide readers with powerful summaries and sound clinical guidance. The best clinical review articles base the discussion on existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and incorporate all relevant research findings about the management of a given disorder. An example is, “Do beta blockers reduce mortality following myocardial infarction?” They use quantitative methods to analyze the literature and seek to answer a focused clinical question, using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies. Meta-analyses are a special type of systematic review. Examples are many of the systematic reviews of the Cochrane Collaboration or BMJ's Clinical Evidence compendium. An example of such a topic is, “The diagnosis and treatment of myocardial ischemia.” Systematic reviews comprehensively examine the medical literature, seeking to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to diagnosis or treatment. 1 Updates selectively review the medical literature while discussing a topic broadly. Clinical review articles, also known as updates, differ from systematic reviews and meta-analyses in important ways. Finally, provide a table of key summary points.Īmerican Family Physician is particularly interested in receiving clinical review articles that follow an evidence-based format.
![how to cite comprehensive meta analysis how to cite comprehensive meta analysis](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0272735813000731-gr2.jpg)
![how to cite comprehensive meta analysis how to cite comprehensive meta analysis](https://bookdown.org/MathiasHarrer/Doing_Meta_Analysis_in_R/images/cover.png)
![how to cite comprehensive meta analysis how to cite comprehensive meta analysis](https://xn--90adflmiialse2m.xn--p1ai/800/600/https/studfile.net/html/2706/215/html_d2FhxeS2pj.y7NA/img-uIx_ZY.png)
In articles submitted to American Family Physician, rate the level of evidence for key recommendations according to the following scale: level A (randomized controlled trial, meta-analysis) level B (other evidence) level C (consensus/expert opinion). Where possible, use evidence based on clinical outcomes relating to morbidity, mortality, or quality of life, and studies of primary care populations. State how the literature search was done and include several sources of evidence-based reviews, such as the Cochrane Collaboration, BMJ's Clinical Evidence, or the InfoRetriever Web site. Include a table of the continuing medical education objectives of the review. First, the topic should be of common interest and relevance to family practice.
![how to cite comprehensive meta analysis how to cite comprehensive meta analysis](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0272735820301070-gr1.jpg)
This article presents guidelines for writing an evidence-based clinical review article for American Family Physician. Meta-analyses (quantitative systematic reviews) seek to answer a focused clinical question, using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies. Nonquantitative systematic reviews comprehensively examine the medical literature, seeking to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to diagnosis or treatment. Updates selectively review the medical literature while discussing a topic broadly. Traditional clinical review articles, also known as updates, differ from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.