Una propuesta metodológica para la conducción de revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura en la investigación biomédica.(Methodology in conducting a systematic review of biomedical research)
Resumen
Las Revisiones Sistemáticas de la Literatura (RSL) son estudios que abordan preguntas de investigación claramente formuladas, con métodos explícitos a partir de estudios primarios. La gran cantidad de estudios publicados en la literatura biomédica dificulta la posibilidad de los clínicos de mantenerse actualizados; por otra parte, se hace necesaria la evaluación crítica de la calidad metodológica de los diferentes estudios primarios, para así brindar un resumen válido, objetivo y actualizado de la mejor evidencia científica disponible y contribuir a la toma de decisiones en la practica clínica. El presente trabajo describe los lineamientos metodológicos a considerar para la elaboración de RSL en la investigación biomédica, mediante una integración descriptiva de las etapas de investigación en este tipo de diseño de estudio; con el objetivo de brindar al lector, de manera clara y detallada las herramientas suficientes que le permitan emprender la elaboración de RSL en la práctica basada en evidencia.
Abstract
Systematic reviews are studies that according research question to identify critical appraisal the research developed about the field of study. The large amount of trials published in biomedical literature complicate the possibility of clinicians to keep update; moreover, it is necessary to critically appraise the methodological quality among the different studies in order to provide a valid, objective and update summary of the best evidence-based practice. This study describes the methodological features to consider for conducting systematic reviews in biomedical research, through an integrative description of the specific research stages for this study design, providing to readers, in a clear and detailed way, the sufficient tools to undertake the elaboration of systematic reviews in evidence-based practice.
Descargas
Referencias bibliográficas
Ferreira González et al. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Scientific Rationale and Interpretation. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2011;64:688–696.
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:376–80.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta analyses of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6: e1000100.
Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, traductores. Manual Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas de Intervenciones, versión 5.1.0 [actualizada en marzo de 2011] [Internet]. Barcelona: Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano; 2012. Disponible en URL [http://www.cochrane.es/?q=es/node/269]
Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Organizing a reviewing strategy. En: Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1984; 13-31.
Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, Juni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347:363–6.
Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–63.
Müller KF, Briel M, D'Amario A, Kleijnen J, Marusic A, Wager E, et al. Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework. Syst Rev. 2013:21;2:34.
Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc. 1994;272:158-62.
Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcomenof research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. J AmnMed Assoc. 1998;280:254-7.
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867-72.
Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:1529-41.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay H. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials. 1996;17:1-12.
Moseley AM, Herbert RD, Sherrington C, Maher CG. Evidence for physiotherapy practice: a survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Aust J Physiother. 2002; 48:43-9.
Armijo S, Gazzi L, Caroline I, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee D. Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review. Physical Therapy. 2008; 88:156-175.
Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials. Physical Therapy. 2003; 83(8):713-21.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.
Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: metaanalysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001.
Van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Editorial board of the Cochrane Collaboration back review group. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration back review group. Spine. 2003; 28:1290-9.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
| Estadísticas de artículo | |
|---|---|
| Vistas de resúmenes | |
| Vistas de PDF | |
| Descargas de PDF | |
| Vistas de HTML | |
| Otras vistas | |
