Jiménez ÁJM, Salcido RMV, Farfán LLP

Language: Spanish
References: 8
Page: 196-200
PDF size: 176.14 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Currently there is an exponential growth in the amount of medical-surgical scientific articles around the world, because of this the spine surgeon must update their evidence-based knowledge to maintain their medical practice in effect. The physician must have the ability and the tools to access the information and discern papers with internal and external validity, besides of recognizing the risk of bias, this known as critical analysis. The objective of these manuscript is to find the basic tools and the critical path to realize form the selection of searching platforms to the assimilation of the conclusions as acquired knowledge. The first phase is to rise the subject, getting to a place that requires a direction, the more specific and a delimited it is, the more precise the selection of articles; a way to achieve this is the investigation through the PICOT question, using as key words the included terms. No platform can contain all the information, the right one is related to the search, preferences, accessibility, language, subject and the domain of this by the user. As part of the process of the critical analysis of the medical literature, is of great importance knowing the context of indexed journals; No journal contains neither the absolute truth or validates the quality and veracity of the information that is shown in a medical review. It's not enough that the article is publish in a importance factor journal to believe in its validity, it most go through a process of analysis and recognition before accepting its content. We can considerate 3 indispensable components in the quality of an article, their internal and external validity, and the methodological congruence, the physician must be capable of identifying and evaluate these components.

REFERENCES

1. Falavigna A, Blauth M, Kates SL. Critical review of a scientific manuscript: a practical guide for reviewers. J Neurosurg. 2018; 128: 312-321.

2. Jiménez AJM, Falavigna A. Educación en investigación. De la medición a la interpretación. Bioestadística quirúrgica. Cap 3, 2018, 29-32.

3. Falavigna A, Jiménez Avila JM. Educación en Investigación. De la idea a la Publicación. Cap 6, 2015, 83-96.

4. Shekelle P, Woolf S, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines BMJ. 1999; 318: 593-596.

5. Gamboa JO, Reyna Espinosa FR. Revistas académicas mexicanas. Panorama y prospectiva. Ciencias Sociales. 2016; 22: 181-191.

6. Manterola DC, Pineda NV, Vial GM, Losada MH. Revisión crítica de la literatura para artículos de terapia. Rev Chil Cir. 2004; 56: 556-604.

7. Manterola C, Pineda V, Grupo MINCIR. El valor de "p" y la significancia estadística". Aspectos generales y su valor en la práctica clínica. Rev Chil Cir. 2008; 60: 89-99.

8. Von EE, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Declaración de la Iniciativa STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology): directrices para la comunicación de estudios observacionales. [The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies]. Gac Sanit. 2008; 22: 144-150.