This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Jüni and colleagues¹ compared 25 checklists from systematic reviews. We agree that readers should be critical of the heterogeneity of the content and results of checklists. Therefore, empirical studies in this field are useful. However, by using the same collection of checklists as Moher et al,² Jüni et al portray an unfair representation of the scientific development of research groups. Our list,³ which Jüni et al included in their analysis, was developed in 1990 and published in 1991. Thereafter, however, we have changed and hopefully improved our checklist, according to the new insights provided by Moher et al⁴ and others. This has resulted in an updated version of our checklist, which has been published in the method guidelines for systematic reviews within the Cochrane Back Review Group.⁵ The updated checklist has already been used in several protocols and reviews in the module of the Back Review . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Peter Jüni, Anne Witschi, Ralph Bloch, and Matthias Egger
JAMA. 1999;282(11):1054-1060.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT