SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Systematic Review. Definitions of systematic review on the world wide web. Available from: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=definition+of+%22systematic+review%22&btnG=Search&meta= (accessed 11 November 2005).
  • 2
    Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5, updated May 2005. Available from: http://www.cochrance.org/resources/handbook (accessed 10 June 2006).
  • 3
    Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Report 4, 2nd edn. March 2001. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/institute/crd/report4.htm (accessed 26 February 2006).
  • 4
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guideline Development Process—Information for National Collaborating. Centres and Guideline Development Groups, 2001; item 9, appendix C, p. 39. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/brdnov01item9appc.pdf (accessed 11 November 2005).
  • 5
    Evans, D. Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluation healthcare interventions. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2003, 12, 7784.
  • 6
    GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal 2004, 328, 1490. Available from: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/328/7454/1490 (accessed. 11 November 2005).
  • 7
    Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) NHS Research Committee Application Form, 2005; section A, part A47. Available from: http://www.corecform.org.uk/AppForm (accessed 11 November 2005).
  • 8
    Scherrer, C. S. & Dorsch, J. L. The evolving role of the librarian in evidence-based medicine. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 1999, 87, 3228.
  • 9
    Sackett, D. L., Rosenber, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B. & Richardson, W. S. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal 1996, 312, 712.
  • 10
    Mulrow, C. D. Systematic Reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal 1994, 309, 5979.
  • 11
    Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Effective Practice. Available from: http://www.csp.org.uk/effectivepractice/effectiveness.cfm#research (accessed 30 August 2005).
  • 12
    Davies, H. O. & Crombie, I. K. Evidence-based medicine, what is a Systematic Review? What Is …? Series, 2004, 1, no. 5. Available from: http://www.evidence-based-medicine.co.uk/What_is_series.html (accessed 30 August 2005).
  • 13
    Humphreys, B. L. Librarians and collaborative research: toward a better scientific base for information practice. Bulletin of the Medical Libraries Association 1996, 83, 4336.
  • 14
    Beverley, C. A., Booth, A. & Bath, P. A. The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2003, 20, 6574.
  • 15
    Ansari, W. L., Phillips, C. J. & Hammick, M. Collaboration and partnerships: developing the evidence base. Health and Social Care in the Community 2001, 9, 21527.
  • 16
    Harris, M. R. The librarian's role in the systematic review process: a case study. Journal of the Medical Libraries Association 2005, 93, 817.
  • 17
    Hydrotherapy Association of Chartered Physiotherapists. Guidance on Good Practice in Hydrotherapy, Information paper no. 39. London, UK: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, 2006.
  • 18
    Geytenbeek, J. Evidence for effective hydrotherapy. Physiotherapy 2002, 88, 51429.
  • 19
    School of Health and Related Research (Scharr). Systematic Reviews: What are they and why are they useful? Sheffield, UK: Sheffield University, 2006. Available from: http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/ir/units/systrev/definitions.htm (accessed 19 June 2006).
  • 20
    Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN). SIGN 50: a Guideline Developers’ Handbook. Methodology checklist 2: Randomised Controlled Trials. Available from: http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/50/checklist2.html (accessed 20 June 2006).
  • 21
    Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D. & Stroup, D. F. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. The Lancet 1999, 352, 1896900.
  • 22
    Egger, M., Juni, P., Bartlett. C., Holenstein, F. & Sterne, J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical Study; Health Technology Assessment 2003, 7, 175.
  • 23
    International Association for the Study of Pain. IASP Pain Terminology. Available from: http://www.iasp-pain.org/terms-p.html (accessed 26 November 2004).
  • 24
    Colle, F., Rannou, F., Revel, M., Fermanian, J. & Poiraudeau, S. Impact of quality scales on levels of evidence inferred from a systematic review of exercise and back pain. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002, 38, 174552.
  • 25
    Katrak, P., Bialocerkowski, A. E., Massy-Westrop, N., Saravana Kumar, V. S. & Grimmer, K. A. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BioMed Central 2004, Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/4/22 (accessed 10 May 2006).
  • 26
    Hall, J., Swinkels, A., Briddon, J. & McCabe, C. S. Does hydrotherapy relieve pain? A systematic review and exploration of underlying mechanisms. 35th Congress of the International Society of Medical Hydrology and Climatology, Istanbul, Turkey, 6–10 June, 2006.
  • 27
    Swinkels, A., Albarran, J. W., Means, R. I., Mitchell, T. & Steward, M. C. Evidence-based practice in health and social care: where are we now?. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2002, 16, 33547.
  • 28
    Florence, V., Giuse, N. B. & Ketchell, D. S. Information in context: integrating information specialists into practice settings. Journal of the Medical Libraries Association 2002, 90, 495.