An analysis of review articles published in four anaesthesia journals

Abstract

Purpose: To see if the authors of review articles in anaesthesia journals are making use of systematic methods in their preparation.

Methods: Twenty-five review articles published in 1995 in four major anaesthesia journals were analysed and compared with standard guidelines for the appraisal of reviews.

Results: Of the 25 articles, only 14 stated a clear purpose. Only two revealed the search strategy used to identity articles for the review. None of the reviews featured any type of quality assessment of the primary studies included, or stated what criteria, if any, were used to determine what material was included or excluded. Useful areas for future research were highlighted in only seven reviews.

Conclusion: There is little evidence that reviews currently accepted for publication in anaesthesia journals have been prepared systematically.