Value Orientation of Medical Information Activity Reflected in Systematic Review_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHANG Ziqi ,  YU Shuangcheng , XU Kun

The Public Health Institute of Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China;

Corresponding author：

YU Shuangcheng, Email: yusc@jlu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Evidence-based medicine; Systematic review; Value orientation; Medical informatics activity

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

As one of the most sophisticated research methods of evidence-based medicine, systematic review is an activity of collecting, arranging and analyzing medical information. The methodological characteristics of systematic review reflect the value orientation of this activity. By analyzing and summarizing these characteristics, this paper points that the process of systematic review reflects the value orientation of attaching importance to obtaining universal information sources, treating individual information in an add-weight way, discretion in interpreting results and updating of time-limited information in medical information activities.

Citation： ZHANG Ziqi,YU Shuangcheng,XU Kun. Value Orientation of Medical Information Activity Reflected in Systematic Review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2006, 06(6): 464-466. doi: Copy

1.	高兴华, 彭湘庆, 李亚宁, 主编．科学认识论教程. 成都: 四川大学出版社; 1991. 325.
2.	吴泰相, 刘关键, 李静. 影响系统评价质量的主要因素浅析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2005; 5(1): 51-58.
3.	梁万年, 主编. 医学科研方法学. 北京: 人民卫生出版社; 2002. 467.
4.	Martha R. The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc, 2005; 93(1): 81-87.
5.	McGowan J. Systematic review need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc, 2005; 93(1): 74-80.
6.	Gao XH, Peng XQ, Li YN, editor-in-chief. Epistemology of science. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press; 1991. 325.
7.	Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials, 1996; 17(1): 1-12.
8.	Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ, 2001; 323(7303): 42-46.
9.	Wu TX, Liu GJ, Li J. Some risks of affecting the quality of published systematic reviews in China. Chin J Evid-based Med, 2005; 5(1): 51-58.
10.	Liang WN, editor-in-chief. Methodology of medical scientific research. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House; 2002. 467.
11.	Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 1999; 354(9193): 1896-1900.
12.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: A Comparison of Cochrane Reviews With Articles Published in Paper-Based Journals. JAMA, 1998; 280: 278 - 280.

1. 高兴华, 彭湘庆, 李亚宁, 主编．科学认识论教程. 成都: 四川大学出版社; 1991. 325.
2. 吴泰相, 刘关键, 李静. 影响系统评价质量的主要因素浅析. 中国循证医学杂志, 2005; 5(1): 51-58.
3. 梁万年, 主编. 医学科研方法学. 北京: 人民卫生出版社; 2002. 467.
4. Martha R. The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc, 2005; 93(1): 81-87.
5. McGowan J. Systematic review need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc, 2005; 93(1): 74-80.
6. Gao XH, Peng XQ, Li YN, editor-in-chief. Epistemology of science. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press; 1991. 325.
7. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials, 1996; 17(1): 1-12.
8. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ, 2001; 323(7303): 42-46.
9. Wu TX, Liu GJ, Li J. Some risks of affecting the quality of published systematic reviews in China. Chin J Evid-based Med, 2005; 5(1): 51-58.
10. Liang WN, editor-in-chief. Methodology of medical scientific research. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House; 2002. 467.
11. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 1999; 354(9193): 1896-1900.
12. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: A Comparison of Cochrane Reviews With Articles Published in Paper-Based Journals. JAMA, 1998; 280: 278 - 280.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Value Orientation of Medical Information Activity Reflected in Systematic Review

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content