Show all languages
Origin ID
QT33
Preferred Label
critical reading 
lecture critique de littératureCategory label
Critical reading Lecture critique de littératureQ-Code supplementary keywords
information seekinglitterature reviewlitterature searchmeta-narrative reviewnumber needed to benefit from informationsystematic reviewsystematic revisionrévision systématiquerevue de littératureQ-Code acronym
NNBINNHNNTCISMeF acronym
NNBIQ-Code scope note
learning to perform a medical database search in EBM, including defining a clinical question, looking for medical evidence, critical reflection on evidence and implementation in practice. (EURACT 2014)apprendre à effectuer une recherche EBM de base de données médicales , y compris la définition d'une question clinique, la recherche de preuves médicales, la réflexion critique sur la preuve et la mise en œuvre dans la pratique. (EURACT 2014)Q-Code conceptual content
COCHRANE COLLABORATION an international organization that assembles studies in specific medical areas and performs meta-analyses in order to provide conclusions regarding scientifically proven methods of management of health problems. (Wonca dic.)Consensus Development Conference [Publication Type]; A work that consists of summary statements representing the majority and current agreement of physicians, scientists, and other professionals meeting to reach a consensus on a selected subject.(MeSH)Consensus Development Conferences as Topic ;Presentations of summary statements representing the majority agreement of physicians, scientists, and other professionals convening for the purpose of reaching a consensus--often with findings and recommendations--on a subject of interest. The Conference, consisting of participants representing the scientific and lay viewpoints, is a significant means of evaluating current medical thought and reflects the latest advances in research for the respective field being addressed.(MeSH)CONSENSUS in medicine an agreement in opinion on a medical question reached by experts. (Woncadic)CRITICAL READING : refers to the reading of a research paper and may be implemented by following these headings: 1. The background and the aim of the study and its relevance to general practice.2. Were the methods used appropriate to the aim of the study? Who were the drop outs, and how did they affect the conclusion of the study? 3. Do the results answer the aim and, are they justified by the methods used? Are there alternative explanations to the findings? 4. Does the conclusion follow from the results? Which are the consequences of the conclusions for general practice? Are they relevant for the GP/FP, and are there barriers? (Wonca dic.)Literature search ; Learning to perform a medical database search in EBM, including defining a clinical question, looking for medical evidence, critical reflection on evidence and implementation in practice. (EURACT 2014)LITERATURE SEARCH a systematic search for literature on a specified subject of interest. One can perform a literature search by hand with the help of a library and references of retrieved publications, or by computer with the help of a retrieval system which can search in medical data banks, e.g. through CD-Rom or internet connection using data bases such as Medline or Embase. (Wonca dic.)META-ANALYSIS ; a review performed in a formal way using methodological criteria to select reliably performed and documented studies on methods of management of medical problems, analyse the evidence, and come to conclusions regarding the scientific value of the results. (Wonca dic.)Meta-Analysis as Topic ; A quantitative method of combining the results of independent studies (usually drawn from the published literature) and synthesizing summaries and conclusions which may be used to evaluate therapeutic effectiveness, plan new studies, etc., with application chiefly in the areas of research and medicine.(MeSH)meta-narrative review ; synthesis of heterogeneous bodies of literature, in which different groups of scientists have conceptualised and investigated the ‘same’ problem in different ways and produced seemingly contradictory findings (Greenhalg 2005)Number needed to benefit from information (NNBI) :. We define the NNBI as the number of patients for whom clinical information (eg, the answers to physicians’ clinical questions) was retrieved for 1 patient to benefit. (Pluye a d all 2015)Number Needed to Harm ; The number of people who would need to be treated over a specific period of time before one bad outcome of the treatment will occur. The number needed to harm (NNH) for a treatment can be known only if clinical trials of the treatment have been performed.(AHRQ)NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT (NNT) ; the number of patients in a given time period who need treatment in order to prevent an unwanted episode of disease or death.(Woncadic)REVIEW a publication which contains an overview of information on a subject based on the literature and expert knowledge. (Wonca dic.)Review Literature as Topic ; Published materials which provide an examination of recent or current literature. Review articles can cover a wide range of subject matter at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness based on analyses of literature that may include research findings. The review may reflect the state of the art. It also includes reviews as a literary form.(MeSH)Systematic review ; is a critical assessment and evaluation of all research studies that address a particular clinical issue. The researchers use an organized method of locating, assembling, and evaluating a body of literature on a particular topic using a set of specific criteria. A systematic review typically includes a description of the findings of the collection of research studies. The systematic review may also include a quantitative pooling of data, called a meta-analysis(AHRQ)CISMeF synonym
revue de la littératureBibliographic link
Citation
Cullen RJ. In search of evidence: family practitioners' use of the Internet for clinical information. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2002; 90(4): 370-9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12398243
Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare. Journal of family medicine and primary care. 2013; 2(1): 9-14. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24479036
McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice. Annals of internal medicine. 1997; 126(9): 712-20. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9139558
Nordmann AJ, Kasenda B, Briel M. Meta-analyses: what they can and cannot do. Swiss medical weekly. 2012; 142: w13518. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22407741
Pluye P, Grad RM, Johnson-Lafleur J, Granikov V, Shulha M, Marlow B, Ricarte IL. Number needed to benefit from information (NNBI): proposal from a mixed methods research study with practicing family physicians. Annals of family medicine. 2013; 11(6): 559-67. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24218380
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC medicine. 2013; 11: 20. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23360661
BabelNet link
Dbpedia link