46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Estudos de revisão sistemática: um guia para síntese criteriosa da evidência científica Translated title: Systematic review studies: a guide for careful synthesis of the scientific evidence

      research-article

      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.

          Abstract

          INTRODUÇÃO: Agregar evidências de pesquisa para guiar a prática clínica é uma das principais razões para se desenvolverem estudos que sintetizam a literatura, mas não é a única. As revisões sistemáticas são desenhadas para ser metódicas, explícitas e passíveis de reprodução. Esse tipo de estudo serve para nortear o desenvolvimento de projetos, indicando novos rumos para futuras investigações e identificando quais métodos de pesquisa foram utilizados em uma área. MÉTODOS: Uma revisão sistemática requer uma pergunta clara, a definição de uma estratégia de busca, o estabelecimento de critérios de inclusão e exclusão dos artigos e, acima de tudo, uma análise criteriosa da qualidade da literatura selecionada. O processo de desenvolvimento desse tipo de estudo de revisão inclui caracterizar cada estudo selecionado, avaliar a qualidade deles, identificar conceitos importantes, comparar as análises estatísticas apresentadas e concluir sobre o que a literatura informa em relação a determinada intervenção, apontando ainda problemas/questões que necessitam de novos estudos. Um trabalho de revisão sistemática segue a estrutura de um artigo original. CONCLUSÃO: Boas revisões sistemáticas são recursos importantes ante o crescimento acelerado da informação científica. Esses estudos ajudam a sintetizar a evidência disponível na literatura sobre uma intervenção, podendo auxiliar profissionais clínicos e pesquisadores no seu cotidiano de trabalho.

          Translated abstract

          INTRODUCTION: Aggregation of research evidence to guide clinical practice is one of the main reasons for conducting studies that provide a synthesis of the literature, but it is not the only reason. Systematic reviews are designed to be methodical, explicit and replicable. Such studies may help to guide project development, by indicating new directions for further investigations and identifying which research methods have been used within a given area. METHODS: Systematic reviews require straightforward questions, search strategy definition, establishment of study inclusion and exclusion criteria and careful analysis of the selected literature. The development process for reviews of this type includes characterization of each selected study, evaluation of their quality, identification of important concepts, comparison of statistical analyses used and conclusions regarding what the literature tells us about a specific intervention. Such reviews also suggest problems/questions that need further investigation. Systematic review studies follow the structure of original articles. CONCLUSION: Good systematic reviews are important resources, in the light of the accelerated growth of scientific information. These studies help in producing syntheses of the evidence available in the literature on specific interventions, and may help clinicians and researchers in their work process.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

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

          Understanding randomised controlled trials.

          A Akobeng (2005)
          The hierarchy of evidence in assessing the effectiveness of interventions or treatments is explained, and the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, the randomised controlled trial, is discussed. Issues that need to be considered during the critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials, such as assessing the validity of trial methodology and the magnitude and precision of the treatment effect, and deciding on the applicability of research results, are discussed. Important terminologies such as randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, intention to treat, p values, and confidence intervals are explained.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions.

            A number of hierarchies of evidence have been developed to enable different research methods to be ranked according to the validity of their findings. However, most have focused on evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions. When the evaluation of healthcare addresses its appropriateness or feasibility, then existing hierarchies are inadequate. This paper reports the development of a hierarchy for ranking of evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. The aims of this hierarchy are twofold. Firstly, it is to provide a means by which the evidence from a range of methodologically different types of research can be graded. Secondly, it is to provide a logical framework that can be used during the development of systematic review protocols to help determine the study designs which can contribute valid evidence when the evaluation extends beyond effectiveness. The proposed hierarchy was developed based on a review of literature, investigation of existing hierarchies and examination of the strengths and limitations of different research methods. The proposed hierarchy of evidence focuses on three dimensions of the evaluation: effectiveness, appropriateness and feasibility. Research that can contribute valid evidence to each is suggested. To address the varying strengths of different research designs, four levels of evidence are proposed: excellent, good, fair and poor. The strength of the proposed hierarchy is that it acknowledges the valid contribution of evidence generated by a range of different types of research. However, hierarchies only provide a guide to the strength of the available evidence and other issues such as the quality of research also have an important influence.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                rbfis
                Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
                Braz. J. Phys. Ther.
                Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia (São Carlos )
                1809-9246
                February 2007
                : 11
                : 1
                : 83-89
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Brazil
                Article
                S1413-35552007000100013
                10.1590/S1413-35552007000100013
                33b49995-e835-483b-8b6d-b4b8f39c394c

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

                History
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Self URI (journal page): http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=1413-3555&lng=en
                Categories
                ORTHOPEDICS
                REHABILITATION

                Orthopedics,Physiotherapy
                systematic review,RCT,synthesis of the literature,revisão sistemática,ECA,síntese da literatura

                Comments

                Comment on this article