Showing papers by "David Tovey published in 2013"
TL;DR: Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.
Abstract: Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.
466 citations
TL;DR: A multicomponent tool could help researchers decide when is best to update a systematic review, and updating too frequently can be an inefficient use of resources and introduce bias.
Abstract: There is no formal consensus on when to update a systematic review, and updating too frequently can be an inefficient use of resources and introduce bias. A multicomponent tool could help researchers decide when is best to update such reviews
49 citations
TL;DR: In 1993, evidence-informed health care was in its infancy and the term “evidence-based medicine” had recently been coined at McMaster University, the Institute of Medicine had published an treatise on “Evidence-Based Medicine”.
Abstract: See also the essay by Cassels on page [1162][1] and at [www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.131213][2]
In 1993, evidence-informed health care was in its infancy. The term “evidence-based medicine” had recently been coined at McMaster University, the Institute of Medicine had published an
19 citations
TL;DR: It is supported by Tsafnat and colleagues’ argument that automation could transform systematic review production and current methods are not sustainable in the face of the deluge of primary research.
Abstract: We support Tsafnat and colleagues’ argument that automation could transform systematic review production.1 Technological innovation has played a central role since the birth of systematic review,2 and machine processes are embedded throughout current systematic review workflow. Nevertheless, current methods are not sustainable in the face of the deluge of primary research.
Few of the recent …
5 citations
TL;DR: The symposium created a space for dialogue among scientists and public health practitioners to improve the understanding of how evidence fulfills the needs and reflect on mechanisms by which policy and program guidance and priorities for research could be better informed by policy andprogram needs.
3 citations
2 citations
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: The WHO evidence-informed guidelines as mentioned in this paper provide recommendations to Member States and their partners on interventions with vitamins and minerals, a process that is dependent on the availability and quality of evidence.
Abstract: The WHO evidence-informed guidelines provide recommendations to Member States and their partners on interventions with vitamins and minerals. Evidence gathered and synthesized through systematic reviews contributes to the development of these guidelines, a process that is dependent on the availability and quality of evidence. Although the guideline development process is stringently governed and supervised to maintain clarity and transparency, the lack of adequacy and specificity of available evidence poses limitations to the formulation of recommendations that can be easily applied for policy and program decision making in diverse contexts. The symposium created a space for dialogue among scientists and public health practitioners to improve the understanding of how evidence fulfills the needs and reflect on mechanisms by which policy and program guidance and priorities for research could be better informed by policy and program needs. Ultimately, programmatic success depends not only on identifying efficacious agents but ensuring effective delivery to those with the potential to respond. To do this, we must understand the rationale for recommending interventions, the biological pathways by which interventions work, delivery systems required to make efficacious interventions work, and other contextual factors that might limit or facilitate successful implementation. Adv. Nutr. 4: 557–559, 2013.