Free database of randomised (randomized) trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and practice guidelines for evidence-based physiotherapy or physical therapy.

Systematic reviews are most useful when they are regularly updated. It is not clear, however, when updating should be done and which strategies and methods are most cost-effectiveThis review identified strategies and methods used to update systematic reviews. Fifteen articles that documented 4 strategies and 2 statistical methods for updating systematic reviews were found. The 4 strategies have not been compared to one another so their practical performances are unclear.

Bronchiectasis is a long-term respiratory disease that is commonly associated with a troublesome cough productive of mucous (or chronic wet cough in children) and recurrent flare-ups (exacerbations) due to lung infections. It significantly impacts upon normal daily activities and quality of life, and can lead to recurrent hospitalisations, loss of lung function and even death.

A systematic review has been undertaken to identify evidence for the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery is per

A systematic review of the evidence of how stigma and nihilism influences lung cancer patterns of care and patients psychosocial and quality of li

Healthcare decision-makers have to deal with a large volume of evidence and may or may not have the capacity to use this evidence in decision-making. Systematic reviews can help with this process by bringing together the relevant evidence and using clear methods which seek to minimise bias. Interventions to help improve the uptake of systematic review evidence have been developed to help with improving the use of evidence. We identified eight studies which evaluated the effectiveness of these types of interventions. There was some evidence to show that a clear message, based on systematic review evidence, which is targeted and disseminated to the relevant healthcare professionals may improve evidence-based practice. If the aim is to help decision-makers increase their awareness and knowledge of systematic review evidence, and evidence-based practice, then interventions that address some of these aims have been evaluated but have shown little effect on practice.

Systematic reviews are summaries of the information that is available on one topic.The most common way to find information for a systematic review is to search electronic literature databases.To increase the chances of finding important information, researchers can also search the tables of contents of journals, and they can contact experts or organizations for more information on the topic of the review.Another way to find more information is to check through the reference lists of relevant studies to see if these references include reports of other studies that might be eligible for the review.It is important to determine whether or not checking reference lists is a good use of time and resources when conducting systematic reviews.

Describes the ASERNIP-S review process.

Health in all countries of the world is unevenly and, to some extent, unfairly distributed according to socioeconomic position. Health and longevity are highest for the richest, and decrease steadily with decreasing socioeconomic status. Avoidable and unfair inequalities have been termed health inequities. Enhancing health equity has now achieved international political importance with endorsement from the World Health Assembly in 2009. The failure of systematic reviews to consider effects on health equity is cited by decision-makers as a limitation. Hence, there is a need for guidance on the advantages and disadvantages of how to assess effects on health equity in systematic reviews.

In 2009, beyondblue: the national depression initiative commissioned research to investigate issues associated with the mental health of medical students and practitioners. The report, The Mental Health of Doctors – A systematic literature review, highlights the extent of the impact of mental illness in the medical profession, key barriers to help-seeking and gaps in current knowledge in this area.