Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles
IMO this article doesn't get a "high" importance rating because it's unlikely to attract very much attention from non-professionals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article content
Shouldn't it be mentioned that a systematic review is not only a review of biomedical research but many other types of healthcare related reserach?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.105.161 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this apply in other fields aside from healthcare as well? Certainly other fields do literature reviews; when those reviews are tightly focused around a particular question, is that not a systematic review? ImpIn | (t - c) 08:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A systematic review is about more than a review being tightly focused around a particular question. That said, systematic reviews are used in contexts beyond healthcare, e.g. education. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic Literature Reviews have been around for a long time, in many other fields. Although they are very important in medical research, there appears to be a perception (encouraged by this article), that they are connected to RCTs and therefore are an invention of medical research. They were co-opted from other fields. This is a severe weakness in this article, and it should be flagged as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmasters0 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory for all professionals?
Either the universal qualifier should be removed or the set of individuals designated specified. Is this saying that RNs. physician assistants, EMTs, etc. for example, are either not medical professionals or should be capable of conducting a systematic review? 96.243.13.36 (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm an american and it's common here to call just about anybody a professional. I didn't know until reading the professional article that the term might be restricted to doctoral graduates which usage would make (much more) sense although I still think the universal qualifier is overreaching. 96.243.13.36 (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
