Skip to Main Content
×   Library Home   Your Library Account   FAQs
Duncan School of Law Library Reed Health Sciences Library University Archives & Special Collections Institutional Repository
Academic Success & Support Book Delivery Faculty Services Interlibrary Loan Library Borrowing Privileges Study Room Reservations Virtual Chat
Advanced Catalog Search Basic Catalog Search Databases Exam Preparation Full-Text Journals Tagge Center for Academic Support
Citations Develop a Topic Evaluating Sources Information Literacy Research & Course Guides Scholarly Reading & Writing Search Methods Tutorials
Library Hours & Locations Library Staff Mission & History
☰

Osteopathic Medicine: Evaluating the Literature

Library Resource Guide for Osteopathic Medicine

Evaluating the Literature

Osteopathic Medicine: Evaluating the Literature

Below you will find resources for evaluating medical literature.

If you have questions, please contact your medical librarian, Daniel Ferrer (Harrogate campus) or Jacquelynn Stephens (Knoxville campus). 

For any questions that cannot be answered here, please visit DCOM's Scholarly Activity and Research Page. 

We also welcome book requests. If you would like to suggest a book, please send an email to one of the medical librarians above.

AMSTAR

AMSTAR - A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews

It evaluates the methodological rigor of the research process used to create a systemantic review, by asking the following:

  1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO (patients/population, intervention, control group, outcome)?
  2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?
  3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
  4.  Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
  5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
  6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
  7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
  8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
  9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?
  10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
  11. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
  12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?
  13. Did the review authors account for RoB in primary studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
  14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?
  15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?
  16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?

Helpful Articles

Helpful Links