“SYSTEMATIC REVIEW”: IS IT DIFFERENT FROM THE “TRADITIONAL REVIEW

Q: How can I download an article?

To download an article from SID, first log in to the site, search for the article title, and click on the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I download an ISI article?

To download an ISI article on SID, enter the keyword or article title in the search bar, view the relevant results, click on the desired article, and select the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I access the SID database?

To access the SID database, visit SID.ir, create an account, and log in to access scientific resources.

Q: Is downloading articles from SID free?

Some articles on SID are available for free, while others require payment. Details are specified on the article's page.

NASERI MOGHADAM S.; MALEKZADEH R.

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Journal Paper

Paper Information

Journal: ARCHIVES OF IRANIAN MEDICINE Year:2006 | Volume:9 | Issue:3 Page(s): 196-199

Download Full-Text

View:

409

Download:

462

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

“SYSTEMATIC REVIEW”: IS IT DIFFERENT FROM THE “TRADITIONAL REVIEW"?

Author(s)

NASERI MOGHADAM S. | MALEKZADEH R. | Issue Writer Certificate

Keywords

Not Registered.

Abstract

Over the past half century we have witnessed exponential growth of scientific research and its application in industry as well as daily life. Medicine is not an exception. The medical literature has grown dramatically with over 2 million articles published yearly in more than 20,000 journals. Keeping up with this is impossible for medical professionals, namely physicians. In addition to being unable to access all the relevant original articles published on a single topic, it has been shown that the main body of practicing and even academic and executive physicians, lack adequate method-ological knowledge and expertise to take care of the published research works, even if they have adequate access. Therefore, “review articles” have gained wide popularity among doctors. These “traditional reviews” are usually written by an expert in the field, either on a personal interest or more commonly on a contract by major journals. These “traditional reviews” provide useful information on general aspects of diseases or new progress. They usually have a general title, are extensively referenced, and reflect points of view of their author(s). The problem rises when you look at different major articles or major reviews on a single topic, which in many instances end up with different conclusions.1 What is the source of dispute, as these authors are expected to have looked at the same literature? Is there any difference in their resources? Have some of them missed some important publications? Are the authors biased towards their own research and points of view? Have they looked differently to the same research work? Are there research works not published in major English language journals, therefore not available to many who need it, i.e., is there some sort of publication bias? Can the statements in the review be generalized to other (especially our own) conditions? What can be done to minimize all these? So we know the following: 1) information is produced at a rapid rate, 2) summarizing the new information at a timely manner is essential to modern medical practice, 3) good reviews are necessary to update users (i.e., medical professionals), and 4) traditional reviews, despite their usefulness, suffer from several major and sometimes fatal drawbacks. “systematic reviews” have been born to respond to these needs.

Cites

COMPARING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN LECTURE-BASED LEARNING VERSUS PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

References

No record.

Cite

APA: Copy

NASERI MOGHADAM, S., & MALEKZADEH, R.. (2006). “SYSTEMATIC REVIEW”: IS IT DIFFERENT FROM THE “TRADITIONAL REVIEW"? . ARCHIVES OF IRANIAN MEDICINE, 9(3), 196-199. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/280098/en

Vancouver: Copy

NASERI MOGHADAM S., MALEKZADEH R.. “SYSTEMATIC REVIEW”: IS IT DIFFERENT FROM THE “TRADITIONAL REVIEW"? . ARCHIVES OF IRANIAN MEDICINE[Internet]. 2006;9(3):196-199. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/280098/en

IEEE: Copy

S. NASERI MOGHADAM, and R. MALEKZADEH, ““SYSTEMATIC REVIEW”: IS IT DIFFERENT FROM THE “TRADITIONAL REVIEW"? ,” ARCHIVES OF IRANIAN MEDICINE, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 196–199, 2006, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/280098/en

Related Journal Papers

No record.

Related Seminar Papers

No record.

Related Plans

No record.

Recommended Workshops