Premium
Building the Powerful 10‐Minute Office Visit: Part II. Beginning a Critical Literature Review
Author(s) -
Neely J. Gail,
Hartman James M.,
Wallace Mark S.
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
the laryngoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1531-4995
pISSN - 0023-852X
DOI - 10.1097/00005537-200101000-00012
Subject(s) - critical appraisal , computer science , reading (process) , critical reading , data science , critical thinking , management science , psychology , medicine , alternative medicine , mathematics education , engineering , pathology , political science , law
Objective This is the second part in a series of sequential Tutorials in Clinical Research. The objective of this tutorial is to introduce methods of searching the vast stores of information now available, to review some of the computer resources available, to reintroduce the concept of an a priori design for the search, and to reveal the need for assessment of the clinical importance and validity of each pertinent article found. Study Design Tutorial. Methods An open working group has been formed with the specific aim of surveying and translating the large volume of complex information on research design and statistics into easily understood, useable, and non‐threatening tutorials for the busy practitioner. The hypotheses under which this work is conducted are highly intelligent, but extremely busy, surgeons are interested in evidence‐based medicine and will increase personal participation in critical reading of the literature, pending an expanded familiarity with clinical research design and statistics. Results Available resources for literature searching, methods of quick personal overviews, and quick question‐specific reviews are discussed. Additionally, the methods, with examples, of beginning a critical literature review are presented. Conclusions Rapid, personal, critical literature review requires succinct formulation of the question, efficient search for the best available evidence, and critical appraisal of the pertinent individual articles to determine if sufficient evidence exists to support a clinical contention.