FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2075856992> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2075856992 endingPage "2006" @default.
• W2075856992 startingPage "2006" @default.
• W2075856992 abstract "Systematic reviews have an inherent ability to minimise systematic and random errors in the assessment of existing research as well as provide a means for policy makers and programme managers to access all available evidence on key questions in a judicious manner.1Wiysonge CS Lavis JN Volmink J Make the money work for health in sub-Saharan Africa.Lancet. 2009; 373: 1174Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google ScholarIn 2007, Andrew Oxman and colleagues2Oxman AD Lavis JN Fretheim A Use of evidence in WHO recommendations.Lancet. 2007; 369: 1883-1889Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar found that guidelines from WHO—the directing authority for health within the UN system—relied heavily on expert opinion rather than engagement with systematic reviews. Two WHO staff, in an accompanying Comment,3Hill S Pang T Leading by example: a culture change at WHO.Lancet. 2007; 369: 1842-1844Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar committed to ensuring that future WHO recommendations are based on the best available scientific evidence. Although the views expressed in the Comment did not necessarily represent the official policy of WHO, we postulated that decision makers at WHO would not be indifferent to the findings of Oxman and colleagues.We therefore aimed to assess the use of systematic reviews in WHO guidelines in the period after the study. We searched the WHO website using the search term “guidelines” and found 31 publicly available WHO guidance documents prepared or updated between January, 2009, and March, 2011.4WHOWHO guidelines approved by the Guidelines Review Committee.http://www.who.int/rpc/guidelines/en/Google Scholar All these recommendations made reference to systematic reviews, which were generally less than 2 years old at the time of guideline preparation. Where there were no recent systematic reviews, WHO commissioned them.5WHOWHO recommendations for induction of labour. World Health Organization, Geneva2011Google ScholarWHO recommendations potentially have an important effect on millions of people in low-income and middle-income countries, which usually lack the resources to develop and maintain evidence-informed guidelines. Therefore, this quick culture change at WHO is praiseworthy and an example worth emulating by other development organisations.We declare that we have no conflicts of interest. Systematic reviews have an inherent ability to minimise systematic and random errors in the assessment of existing research as well as provide a means for policy makers and programme managers to access all available evidence on key questions in a judicious manner.1Wiysonge CS Lavis JN Volmink J Make the money work for health in sub-Saharan Africa.Lancet. 2009; 373: 1174Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar In 2007, Andrew Oxman and colleagues2Oxman AD Lavis JN Fretheim A Use of evidence in WHO recommendations.Lancet. 2007; 369: 1883-1889Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar found that guidelines from WHO—the directing authority for health within the UN system—relied heavily on expert opinion rather than engagement with systematic reviews. Two WHO staff, in an accompanying Comment,3Hill S Pang T Leading by example: a culture change at WHO.Lancet. 2007; 369: 1842-1844Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar committed to ensuring that future WHO recommendations are based on the best available scientific evidence. Although the views expressed in the Comment did not necessarily represent the official policy of WHO, we postulated that decision makers at WHO would not be indifferent to the findings of Oxman and colleagues. We therefore aimed to assess the use of systematic reviews in WHO guidelines in the period after the study. We searched the WHO website using the search term “guidelines” and found 31 publicly available WHO guidance documents prepared or updated between January, 2009, and March, 2011.4WHOWHO guidelines approved by the Guidelines Review Committee.http://www.who.int/rpc/guidelines/en/Google Scholar All these recommendations made reference to systematic reviews, which were generally less than 2 years old at the time of guideline preparation. Where there were no recent systematic reviews, WHO commissioned them.5WHOWHO recommendations for induction of labour. World Health Organization, Geneva2011Google Scholar WHO recommendations potentially have an important effect on millions of people in low-income and middle-income countries, which usually lack the resources to develop and maintain evidence-informed guidelines. Therefore, this quick culture change at WHO is praiseworthy and an example worth emulating by other development organisations. We declare that we have no conflicts of interest." @default.
• W2075856992 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2075856992 creator A5019047474 @default.
• W2075856992 creator A5057751097 @default.
• W2075856992 date "2011-06-01" @default.
• W2075856992 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2075856992 title "Use of systematic reviews in WHO recommendations" @default.
• W2075856992 cites W2000535731 @default.
• W2075856992 cites W2112003434 @default.
• W2075856992 cites W2143021417 @default.
• W2075856992 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60867-2" @default.
• W2075856992 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21665038" @default.
• W2075856992 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2075856992 type Work @default.
• W2075856992 sameAs 2075856992 @default.
• W2075856992 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2075856992 countsByYear W20758569922013 @default.
• W2075856992 countsByYear W20758569922014 @default.
• W2075856992 countsByYear W20758569922015 @default.
• W2075856992 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2075856992 hasAuthorship W2075856992A5019047474 @default.
• W2075856992 hasAuthorship W2075856992A5057751097 @default.
• W2075856992 hasBestOaLocation W20758569921 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConcept C3020774429 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConceptScore W2075856992C15744967 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConceptScore W2075856992C17744445 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConceptScore W2075856992C189708586 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConceptScore W2075856992C199539241 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConceptScore W2075856992C2779473830 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConceptScore W2075856992C3020774429 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConceptScore W2075856992C509550671 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConceptScore W2075856992C71924100 @default.
• W2075856992 hasConceptScore W2075856992C83867959 @default.
• W2075856992 hasIssue "9782" @default.
• W2075856992 hasLocation W20758569921 @default.
• W2075856992 hasLocation W20758569922 @default.
• W2075856992 hasOpenAccess W2075856992 @default.
• W2075856992 hasPrimaryLocation W20758569921 @default.
• W2075856992 hasRelatedWork W2041004369 @default.
• W2075856992 hasRelatedWork W2507655183 @default.
• W2075856992 hasRelatedWork W2801277746 @default.
• W2075856992 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2075856992 hasRelatedWork W3159663348 @default.
• W2075856992 hasRelatedWork W3187856172 @default.
• W2075856992 hasRelatedWork W4283325744 @default.
• W2075856992 hasRelatedWork W4283729252 @default.
• W2075856992 hasRelatedWork W4288039995 @default.
• W2075856992 hasRelatedWork W2969053027 @default.
• W2075856992 hasVolume "377" @default.
• W2075856992 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2075856992 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2075856992 magId "2075856992" @default.
• W2075856992 workType "article" @default.