Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
In this paper we describe three approaches to assessing evidence for stakeholders interested in evidence-based practices: narrative reviews, systematic reviews (including meta-analyses), and registries. We then compare the approaches in terms of the degree to which they posses desired attributes of evidence assessments. Our review suggests that hybrid approaches that combined the best features of all three should be pursued to further the use of evidence-based practices, and that such hybrids are possible given the capacity of the World Wide Web. We conclude by stressing the need for empirical research on evidence assessments.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10488-006-0057-z | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!