New evidence pyramid
By M. H. Murad, Noor Asi, Mouaz Alsawas, Fares Alahdab. Evidence-Based Medicine, 2016
1,177 citations recorded by the source corpus.
A pyramid has expressed the idea of hierarchy of medical evidence for so long, that not all evidence is the same. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been placed at the top of this pyramid for several good reasons. However, there are several counterarguments to this placement. We suggest another way of looking at the evidence-based medicine pyramid and explain how systematic reviews and meta-analyses are tools for consuming evidence—that is, appraising, synthesising and applying evidence.
Subfields: Physiology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5e0430228fb19aef8b5fd4f9222bcc84639432e7
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- MetaInsight: An interactive web‐based tool for analyzing, interrogating, and visualizing network meta‐analyses using R‐shiny and netmeta (2019, background): “8 We hope that MetaInsight allows users to explore this notion by easily changing basic NMA options, and excluding studies on a case ‐ by ‐ case basis to explore the robustness of results.”
- Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports (2018, background): “24 25 It is paramount to recognise that a systematic review and meta-analysis of case reports/series should not be placed at the top of the hierarchy in a pyramid that depicts validity.(26) The certainty of evidence derived from a meta-analysis is contingent on the design of included studies, their ”