Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of bmjThe BMJ
BMJ. 1994 September 3; 309(6954): 597–599.
PMCID: PMC2541393

Rationale for systematic reviews.


Systematic literature reviews including meta-analyses are invaluable scientific activities. The rationale for such reviews is well established. Health care providers, researchers, and policy makers are inundated with unmanageable amounts of information; they need systematic reviews to efficiently integrate existing information and provide data for rational decision making. Systematic reviews establish whether scientific findings are consistent and can be generalised across populations, settings, and treatment variations, or whether findings vary significantly by particular subsets. Meta-analyses in particular can increase power and precision of estimates of treatment effects and exposure risks. Finally, explicit methods used in systematic reviews limit bias and, hopefully, will improve reliability and accuracy of conclusions.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (903K), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Images in this article

Click on the image to see a larger version.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Morgan PP. Review articles: 2. The literature jungle. CMAJ. 1986 Jan 15;134(2):98–99. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Chalmers I, Hetherington J, Newdick M, Mutch L, Grant A, Enkin M, Enkin E, Dickersin K. The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials: developing a register of published reports of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Dec;7(4):306–324. [PubMed]
  • Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jul 23;327(4):248–254. [PubMed]
  • Dickersin K, Berlin JA. Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science. Epidemiol Rev. 1992;14:154–176. [PubMed]
  • Boissel JP, Blanchard J, Panak E, Peyrieux JC, Sacks H. Considerations for the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Summary of a panel discussion. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Sep;10(3):254–281. [PubMed]
  • Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A. Meta-analysis: the fashion of summing-up evidence. Part I. Rationale and conduct. Ann Oncol. 1991 Jul;2(7):461–468. [PubMed]
  • Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987 Mar;106(3):485–488. [PubMed]
  • Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ. 1988 Apr 15;138(8):697–703. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Cooper HM, Rosenthal R. Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull. 1980 May;87(3):442–449. [PubMed]
  • Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992 Jul 8;268(2):240–248. [PubMed]

Articles from The BMJ are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group