| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
Department of Anaesthesia; Changhai Hospital; Second Military Medical University; Shanghai, China; deng_x{at}yahoo.com
To the Editor:
In a recent paper, Swaminathan et al.1 reported results of a bibliometric analysis of global clinical research performed by individuals from anesthesia departments. As part of this analysis, one metric assessing quality was the type of publication wherein randomized controlled trials were judged the highest followed by controlled clinical trials, clinical trials, evaluation and/or validation studies, and finally meta-analyses.
In our opinion, this ordering of publication importance may mislead readers regarding the importance of meta-analyses. In the categories of the quality and strength of evidence, modified from Eccles et al.,2 evidence from properly performed meta- analyses of randomized controlled trials represent good evidence to support treatment.3 Thus, the conclusions and recommendations emanating from meta-analyses may be vital for anesthesiologists.
REFERENCES
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Swaminathan, B. G. Phillips-Bute, and K. P. Grichnik The Assessment of Publication Quality Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2008; 106(5): 1590 - 1590. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|