630
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Principais itens para relatar Revisões sistemáticas e Meta-análises: A recomendação PRISMA

      undefined

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests.

          J J Deeks (2001)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

            A new type of research, termed meta-analysis, attempts to analyze and combine the results of previous reports. We found 86 meta-analyses of reports of randomized controlled trials in the English-language literature. We evaluated the quality of these meta-analyses, using a scoring method that considered 23 items in six major areas--study design, combinability, control of bias, statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and application of results. Only 24 meta-analyses (28 percent) addressed all six areas, 31 (36 percent) addressed five, 25 (29 percent) addressed four, 5 (6 percent) addressed three, and 1 (1 percent) addressed two. Of the 23 individual items, between 1 and 14 were addressed satisfactorily (mean +/- SD, 7.7 +/- 2.7). We conclude that an urgent need exists for improved methods in literature searching, quality evaluation of trials, and synthesizing of the results.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data.

              Questions concerning the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of depression in children led us to compare and contrast published and unpublished data on the risks and benefits of these drugs. We did a meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials that evaluated an SSRI versus placebo in participants aged 5-18 years and that were published in a peer-reviewed journal or were unpublished and included in a review by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The following outcomes were included: remission, response to treatment, depressive symptom scores, serious adverse events, suicide-related behaviours, and discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events. Data for two published trials suggest that fluoxetine has a favourable risk-benefit profile, and unpublished data lend support to this finding. Published results from one trial of paroxetine and two trials of sertraline suggest equivocal or weak positive risk-benefit profiles. However, in both cases, addition of unpublished data indicates that risks outweigh benefits. Data from unpublished trials of citalopram and venlafaxine show unfavourable risk-benefit profiles. Published data suggest a favourable risk-benefit profile for some SSRIs; however, addition of unpublished data indicates that risks could outweigh benefits of these drugs (except fluoxetine) to treat depression in children and young people. Clinical guideline development and clinical decisions about treatment are largely dependent on an evidence base published in peer-reviewed journals. Non-publication of trials, for whatever reason, or the omission of important data from published trials, can lead to erroneous recommendations for treatment. Greater openness and transparency with respect to all intervention studies is needed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: TR
                Role: TR
                Role: TR
                Journal
                ress
                Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde
                Epidemiol. Serv. Saúde
                Ministério da Saúde do Brasil (Brasília )
                1679-4974
                June 2015
                : 24
                : 2
                : 335-342
                Article
                S2237-96222015000200335
                10.5123/S1679-49742015000200017
                1ddffc87-6884-4bcd-9b48-6da8307eca80

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Self URI (journal page): http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=2237-9622&lng=en
                Categories
                Health Care Sciences & Services
                Health Policy & Services

                Health & Social care,Public health
                Health & Social care, Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article