Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: Complementary roles for systematic and nonsystematic reviews

Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: Complementary roles for systematic and nonsystematic... Adv in Health Sci Educ (2008) 13:391–395 DOI 10.1007/s10459-008-9140-4 EDITORIAL Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: Complementary roles for systematic and nonsystematic reviews David A. Cook Received: 25 September 2008 / Accepted: 25 September 2008 / Published online: 11 October 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 In a recent editorial, Eva discussed the ‘‘limits of systematicity’’ (Eva 2008). His comments highlight a number of legitimate concerns regarding the validity and usefulness of sys- tematic reviews. He notes that bias—‘‘systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others’’ (Merriam-Webster)—is unavoidable. Given this, he posits that we ought to embrace our biases, avoid the pretence of systematicity altogether, and focus instead on nonsystematic syntheses. While I do not disagree with his critique, I believe his solution to the problem swings the pendulum further than needed. In this article, I will argue that both systematic and nonsystematic reviews play vital and complementary roles in advancing the art and science of medical education. The limits of systematicity The purpose of a systematic review is to identify and summarize all research germane to a focused research question using methods that limit bias and random error (Cook http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advances in Health Sciences Education Springer Journals

Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: Complementary roles for systematic and nonsystematic reviews

Cook, David
Advances in Health Sciences Education , Volume 13 (4) – Oct 11, 2008
Download PDF
5 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/narrowing-the-focus-and-broadening-horizons-complementary-roles-for-EdrUEdep0p

References (22)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Subject
Education; Medical Education
ISSN
1382-4996
eISSN
1573-1677
DOI
10.1007/s10459-008-9140-4
pmid
18850297
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Adv in Health Sci Educ (2008) 13:391–395 DOI 10.1007/s10459-008-9140-4 EDITORIAL Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: Complementary roles for systematic and nonsystematic reviews David A. Cook Received: 25 September 2008 / Accepted: 25 September 2008 / Published online: 11 October 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 In a recent editorial, Eva discussed the ‘‘limits of systematicity’’ (Eva 2008). His comments highlight a number of legitimate concerns regarding the validity and usefulness of sys- tematic reviews. He notes that bias—‘‘systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others’’ (Merriam-Webster)—is unavoidable. Given this, he posits that we ought to embrace our biases, avoid the pretence of systematicity altogether, and focus instead on nonsystematic syntheses. While I do not disagree with his critique, I believe his solution to the problem swings the pendulum further than needed. In this article, I will argue that both systematic and nonsystematic reviews play vital and complementary roles in advancing the art and science of medical education. The limits of systematicity The purpose of a systematic review is to identify and summarize all research germane to a focused research question using methods that limit bias and random error (Cook

Journal

Advances in Health Sciences Education – Springer Journals

Published: Oct 11, 2008

There are no references for this article.