Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis
- 6 November 2003
- Vol. 327 (7423) , 1083-1084
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1083
Abstract
Systematic reviews are key to implementing evidence based medicine.1 We wondered if the reviews done to date are related to the burden of disease from various conditions. Ideally, evidence should be prioritised for diseases with the greatest global impact. We estimated Spearman correlations between the number of systematic reviews in two important databases (the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR) and the database of abstracts of reviews of effects (DARE)) and the burden of disease (globally and in established market economies) across disease categories. We also estimated the burden of disease for each available review measured in disability adjusted life years (DALYs).2 3 We used 1990 estimates of burden of disease because studies included in systematic reviews would have responded to recent past health needs. Results with estimates from 2000 were similar. We categorised tar geted diseases in 923 reviews from the CDSR and 1899 reviews from the DARE in issue 4, 2000, of the Cochrane Library using 20 categories of the global burden of …Keywords
This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- Relation between burden of disease and randomised evidence in sub-Saharan Africa: survey of researchBMJ, 2002
- Should journals publish systematic reviews that find no evidence to guide practice? Examples from injury researchBMJ, 2000
- The Relation between Funding by the National Institutes of Health and the Burden of DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- Systematic Reviews: Critical Links in the Great Chain of EvidenceAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1997