Baptista-González HA

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 223-235
PDF size: 120.84 Kb.

ABSTRACT

This is the first article of a sequence of documents and reflections about systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) tools available for the evaluation of clinical interventions. The implementation success needs the SR and MA information understanding, their influence over the decision making at a hierarchic level and the fabrication of the necessary spaces for their development and application. At the end of the sequence, the reader will find answer to concret clinical questions by a critical evaluation of the secondary information tools and to develop the necessary elements for the judgments, reasonable and critical use of clinical practice guides.

REFERENCES

1. Heinrichs KI. Problem-Based Learning in Entry-Level Athletic Training Professional-Education Programs: A Model for Developing Critical-Thinking and Decision-Making Skills. J Athl Train 2002; 37(4 Suppl): S189-S198.

2. Sackett D. Medicina basada en la evidencia: Cómo ejercer y enseñar la MBE. Churchill Livingstone, 1997.

3. Chalkidou K, Walley T, Culyer A, Littlejohns P, Hoy A. Evidence-informed evidence-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008; 13: 167-73.

4. Franco G, Monduzzi G. Experimental validation of the Evidence-Based Occupational Health paradigm and of the PICO model in the decision making process applied by occupational health physicians. Med Lav 2004; 95: 423-30.

5. Pólya G. How to Solve it: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. 2nd ed., Princeton University Press, 1957, ISBN 0-691-08097-6.

6. Perera R, Heneghan C. Interpreting meta-analysis in systematic reviews. Evid Based Med 2008; 13: 67-9.

7. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Platt RW, Steele RJ, Brophy JM, Carnevale F et al. The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses: an objective or subjective process? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8: 19.

8. Tseng TY, Dahm P, Poolman RW, Preminger GM, Canales BJ, Montori VM. How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol 2008 Aug 14. [Epub ahead of print]

9. Zwahlen M, Renehan A, Egger M. Meta-analysis in medical research: potentials and limitations. Urol Oncol 2008; 26: 320-9.

10. Ruano-Raviña A, Figueiras A, Barros-Dios JM. El metaanálisis a debate. Med Clin (Barc) 2002; 119: 435-439.

11. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18; (2): MR000016.

12. Guyatt GH, Mills EJ, Elbourne D. In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter. PLoS Med 2008 Jan 3; 5(1): e4.

13. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Laupland K, Manns B, Doig C. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal. Crit Care Med 2007; 35: 589-94.

14. Lundh A, Gøtzsche PC. Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 21; 8: 22.

15. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Fergusson D, Cogo E, Horsley T, Moher D. Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 422-34.

16. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, Brophy J, Rossignol M. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 166: 1203-9.

17. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Platt RW, Steele RJ, Brophy JM, Carnevale F et al. The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analysis: an objective or subjective process? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8: 19.

18. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, Barrowman N. When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 Jan 23; (1): MR000023.