Evidence-based evaluation of information: The centrality and limitations of systematic reviews

Abstract

This introductory paper considers the value and limitations of the methodology of systematic reviews especially according to the evidence-based movement. It explains some terms and organisations producing systematic reviews. It also discusses controversies. The first concerns the criteria by which the quality of individual studies is assessed, the second the possible effects of the affiliation of some reviewers, and the third the value of formalisation of procedure (i.e. the tensions between formal tools and professional judgments). The article contrasts the evidence-based formalism with other formalisms as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It discusses systematic reviews in social science where interventions are complex, difficult to blind, and depend on context. Systematic reviews in working life research are often focusing on prevention. The formal evidence-based process may devaluate or disregard findings from mechanistic and observational studies. Hence such reviews may falsely conclude that existing knowledge about the risk of the factor is limited or nonexistent.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.