An analysis of review articles published in primary care journals

Abstract

Review articles play an important role in synthesizing primary research for dissemination to clinicians. In a previous study it was found that many review articles appearing in leading peer-reviewed general medical journals are not prepared systematically. Given that review articles feature prominently in primary care journals, this study assessed the extent to which review articles published in the seven main primary care journals during 1991 had been assembled using a systematic and scientific approach. A total of 28 review articles were identified covering a wide range of subject areas. However, when standard criteria were used to assess their methodological rigour, only 25% of the articles had a total score of more than 8 points (out of a possible 16). The validity of any conclusions or recommendations made in a poorly assembled review need to be carefully examined. Improving the methodological standards by which reviews are assembled in primary care journals should be seen as both a challenge and a priority.