JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
A critique: The good and bad of a review
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : TANG [HUMANITAS MEDICINE]
  • Volume 5, Issue 3,  2015, pp.16.1-16.3
  • Publisher : Association of Humanitas Medicine
  • DOI : 10.5667/tang.2015.0008
 Title & Authors
A critique: The good and bad of a review
McMullen, Debbie; McClean, Rhett; Pak, Sok Cheon;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Evidence based medicine involves using both the individual clinician's expertise and the current best available external clinical evidence from systematic research in deciding on the appropriate care for individual patients. The current approach to evidence based practice in healthcare adds a third component which is patient values. Evidence based practice is thus a triad, in which the practitioner's expertise, research evidence and the patient's values are all given consideration. The balance to be struck between them depends on the individual case. The literature indicates that complementary medicine practitioners are moving away from traditional knowledge and towards the use of evidence based practice in their clinical discussions. In the context of the daily practice of complementary medicine practitioners and their continuing development of their knowledge base of evidence based practice, this short review discusses the good and bad of a review journal article.
 Keywords
critique;review;methodology;bias;evidence;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Abalos E, Carroli G, Mackey ME, Bergel E. Critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Geneva: The World Health Organization Reproductive Health Library; 2001. No 4, WHO/RHR/01.6. Available at: http://apps.who.int/rhl/Critical%20appraisal%20o f%20systematic%20reviews.pdf (accessed on 4th March 2015).

2.
Boswell C, Cannon S. Critique process. In: Introduction to nursing research: Incorporating evidence based practice. Boswell C, Cannon S, editors. 3rd ed. (Burlington, USA: Jones and Bartlett Learning), pp. 291-309, 2014.

3.
Caldwell K, Henshaw L, Taylor G. Developing a framework for critiquing health research. J Health, Social and Environmental Issues. 2005;6:45-54.

4.
Caldwell K, Henshaw L, Taylor G. Developing a framework for critiquing health research: an early evaluation. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31:8:e1-e7. crossref(new window)

5.
Collins JA, Fauser BC. Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11:103-104.

6.
Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. (Los Angeles, USA: Sage Publications Inc), 2013.

7.
Ernst E, Cohen MH, Stone J. Ethical problems arising in evidence based complementary and alternative medicine. J Med Ethics. 2004;30:156-159. crossref(new window)

8.
Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5:101-117. crossref(new window)

9.
Hess DR. What is evidence-based medicine and why should I care? Respir Care. 2004;49:730-741.

10.
Ho MP, Peterson PN, Masoudi FA. Evaluating the evidence: is there a rigid hierarchy? Circulation. 2008;118:1675-1684. crossref(new window)

11.
Hou IC, Amarnani S, Chong MT, Bishayee A. Green tea and the risk of gastric cancer: epidemiological evidence. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:3713-3722. crossref(new window)

12.
Marshall G. Critiquing a research article. Radiography. 2005;11:55-59. crossref(new window)

13.
Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E. Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare. 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, USA: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins), 2011.

14.
Rother ET. Systematic review ${\times}$ narrative review. Acta Paul Enferm. 2007;20:v-vi. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-21002007000200001 (accessed on 4th March 2015). crossref(new window)

15.
Webb C, Roe B. Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice: Systematic Reviews. (Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd), 2007.

16.
Yuan JM. Cancer prevention by green tea: Evidence from epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98:1676S-1681S. crossref(new window)