Teagarden JR. Meta-analysis: whither narrative review?Pharmacotherapy1989; 9: 274–284.
2.
Gotzche PC. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. Br Med J1987; 295: 654–656.
3.
Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med1987; 166: 485–488.
4.
Cooper HM, Rosenthal R. Statistical verus traditional procedures for summarising research findings. Psychol Bull1980; 87: 442–449.
5.
Chalmers TC, Prank CS, Reitman D. Minimising the three stages of publication bias. J Am Med Assoc1990; 263: 139–295.
6.
Librach SL, Rapson LM. The use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for the relief of pain in palliative care. Palliat Med1988; 2: 15–20.
7.
Reeve J, Menon C, Corabian PTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) a technology assessment. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1995.
8.
Beattie G, Leonard R, Smyth J. Bowel obstruction in ovarian carcinoma: a retrospective study and review of the literature. Palliat Med1989; 3: 275–280.
9.
Farais-Eisner R, Young K, Berek J. Bowel obstruction in ovarian cancer. Semin Surg Oncol1994; 10: 268–275.
10.
Oxman AD, Ouyatt GM. The science of reviewing research. Ann NY Acad Sci1993; 703: 125–131.
11.
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD guidelines for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. Report 4. The University of York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 1996.
12.
Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publishing, 1995.
13.
Chalmers I. The Cochrane collaboration: preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann NY Acad Sci1993; 703: 156–163.
14.
Viola R, Wells G, Peterson J. The effects of fluid status and fluid therapy on the dying: a systematic review. J Pall Care1997; 13: 41–52.
15.
Cancer Guidance subgroup of the Clinical Outcomes Group. Improving outcomes in colorectal cancer – the manual. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1997.
16.
Cancer Guidance subgroup of the Clinical Outcomes Group. Improving outcomes in colorectal cancer – the research evidence. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1997.
17.
Cancer Guidance subgroup of the Clinical Outcomes Group. Improving outcomes in lung cancer: the manual. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1998.
18.
Cancer Guidance subgroup of the Clinical Outcomes Group. Improving outcomes in lung cancer: the research evidence. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1998.
19.
Audit Commission Report. What seems to be the matter?London: HMSO, 1993.
20.
Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre?. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. Br Med J1994; 309: 128–691.
21.
Greenhalgh TSearching the literature. In: How to read a paper. London: BMJ Publishing, 1997: 13–33.
22.
Rinck CG, Geertrudis AM, Kleijnen J, Hanneke JC, Schade E, Beenhof FC. Methodologic issues in effectiveness research on palliative cancer care: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol1997; 15: 1697–1707.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, TugwelI T, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clinical Trials1995; 16: 62–73.
27.
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RI, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAm Med Assoc1995; 273: 408–412.
28.
Oxman A ed. Preparing and maintaining systematic reviews. In: Cochrane collaboration handbook section VI. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration, 1995.
29.
Wiffen P. Evidence-based care at the end of life. Palliat Med1998; 12: 1–3.
30.
Bosanquet N, Killbery E, Salisbury C, Franks P, Kite S, Lorentzon M, Naysmith A. Appropriate and cost effective models of service delivery in palliative care. London: Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, Imperial School of Medicine at St Mary's, 1997.