Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeImportant article
Posted by Helen_Atherton on 22 Aug 2013 at 17:00 GMT
This is a really useful article. I'm the author of two empty reviews, from a set of five linked reviews. The reviews examined email for varying purposes in healthcare. It is a fledgling field and email is a complex intervention. Our finding in doing the reviews was that use of email in practice did not match how it was represented in research (the studies available). We are currently updating the five reviews, and merging the two empty reviews in with one of the other reviews, to create what will be a more sensible approach to assessing email as an intervention. The flexibility of the review group (Consumers and Communication) has meant we could do this, to conduct an update that will be relevant both clinically, and to the research that is being conducted. The updates are ongoing so it remains to be seen what is found, but it all makes more sense this time around. I agree completely that the lack of guidance on how to write up an empty review makes it very challenging, and hope your further research will help to address this. I feel flexibility to adapt reviews as fields develop is crucial if empty reviews are to become useful reviews.