title: Cautionary tales in the interpretation of systematic reviews of therapy trials.
abstract: This is the second in a series of articles emphasizing the cautions in the interpretation of health-care studies. Systematic reviews are presented as comprehensive, unbiased summaries of evidence and are often referred to by clinicians, guideline developers and health policy-makers. Their strengths and limitations, and how their results can be subject to bias and misinterpretation, are discussed.
authors.affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ian_scott@health.qld.gov.au
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Scott
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Greenberg
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Poole
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Campbell
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000592:standards; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000592:standards* / Q000639:trends*; D012196:Review Literature as Topic; D016896:Treatment Outcome