Importancia de las revisiones sistemáticas y metanálisis en la era de la información digital.
Importance of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in the digital information age.
Abstract
The digital information age has resulted in an overwhelming avalanche of scientific information in all areas, causing specialists in the health area to face a significant challenge to select and synthesize the most important and relevant information in their fields. Systematic reviews have positioned themselves as one of the main tools for searching, collecting, and synthesizing data from scientific publications, making it easier for health personnel to stay up-to-date and make health decisions based on the best scientific evidence available to date. Several guides have been developed seeking to establish guidelines and unify the way to carry out systematic reviews and meta-analyses to improve the quality of their presentation. However, this type of scientific publication is not exempt from limitations and disadvantages. The PRISMA statement constitutes an excellent guide for accomplishing scientific reviews and meta-analyses since it details each aspect to be considered in preparing this type of scientific publication. Since its appearance, this statement continues to experience modifications to update it and adapt it according to the new scientific evidence available.
Downloads
References
Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Glass GV. Primary Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher 1976;5:3-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354:1896-1900.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. PLoS Med 2009, 21;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Urrutia G, Bonfill X. Declaración PRISMA: una propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Med Clin (Barc) 2010;135(11):507-511.
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporatingnetwork meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:777-784.
Page M, McKenzie1 J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff J, Akl E, Brennan S, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw J, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu1 M, Li1T, Loder E, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald1 S, McGuinness L, Stewart L, Thomas J, Tricco A, Welch V, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2021;10(89):2-11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4.
