An analysis of review articles published in four anaesthesia journals.
OBJECTIVE
To see if the authors of review articles in anaesthesia journals are making use of systematic methods in their preparation.


METHODS
Twenty-five review articles published in 1995 in four major anaesthesia journals were analysed and compared with standard guidelines for the appraisal of reviews.


RESULTS
Of the 25 articles, only 14 stated a clear purpose. Only two revealed the search strategy used to identity articles for the review. None of the reviews featured any type of quality assessment of the primary studies included, or stated what criteria, if any, were used to determine what material was included or excluded. Useful areas for future research were highlighted in only seven reviews.


CONCLUSIONS
There is little evidence that reviews currently accepted for publication in anaesthesia journals have been prepared systematically.
Smith
A F
AF
Department of Anaesthesia, Manchester Royal Infirmary, United Kingdom.
D000776:Anesthesiology; D003657:Decision Making; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006801:Humans; D016239:MEDLINE; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards; D012106:Research / Q000639:trends; D012107:Research Design; D012196:Review Literature as Topic