"... Petticrew and Egan comment that: ‘‘There is a widespread assumption that what systematic reviews are best at is assessing ‘the evidence’ and concluding that it is too little, and anyway what there is of it, isn’t very good’’. They highlight a useful 19th century word for this activity - floccinaucinihilipilification - which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary means ‘‘The action or habit of estimating something as worthless.’’ "
 Petticrew M, Egan M. Relevance, rigour and systematic reviews. In Popay J, editor. Moving beyond effectiveness in evidence synthesis: methodological issues in the synthesis of diverse sources of evidence. London: NICE, in press.
Monday, November 21, 2005
From a recent commentary in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (I put some links in):