Cautionary tales in the interpretation of systematic reviews of therapy trials
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.
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media