Skip Navigation


Human Reproduction Update Advance Access originally published online on December 23, 2004
Human Reproduction Update 2005 11(2):103-104; doi:10.1093/humupd/dmh058
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
11/2/103    most recent
dmh058v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Collins, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Fauser, B. C.J.M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Collins, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Fauser, B. C.J.M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction Update Vol. 11 No. 2 © European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2004; all rights reserved

Editorial

Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.



The mandate of Human Reproduction Update involves several roles: (i) to provide a synthesis of evidence that can aid scientists and clinicians in their daily work; (ii) to help reproductive specialists understand concepts from related disciplines; and (iii) to summarize current knowledge generated by basic science as the foundation of future scientific and clinical advancement. Given that review and synthesis are central to good scientific and clinical practice, and that a grasp of the current state of knowledge is a prerequisite to designing new studies, it is pertinent to ask which reviews are most likely to fulfil the needs of readers. A related question concerns whether systematic reviews meet the needs of all review topics and all readers.

Summarizing evidence or . . . [Full Text of this Article]

John A. Collins1,2 and Bart C.J.M. Fauser3

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada and 3 Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?