La revisión sistemáticapluralidad de enfoques y metodologías

  1. María Sobrido Prieto
  2. José María Rumbo-Prieto
Revista:
Enfermería clínica

ISSN: 1130-8621

Ano de publicación: 2018

Volume: 28

Número: 6

Páxinas: 387-393

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.1016/J.ENFCLI.2018.08.008 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Outras publicacións en: Enfermería clínica

Resumo

A systematic review is considered a “special” type of scientific article that, without being original, summarizes the current state of research on a particular topic, through a rigorous and reproducible systematic process. It emerged in order to offer a deeper insight and to understand a specific phenomenon of reality, based on the results of other research to consolidate existing knowledge and identify unresolved problems. This could facilitate decision-making according to the evidence. However, many synonyms are included under the generic term “review” that, through ignorance or misuse, can be disconcerting. This article explores the different types of published systematic reviews that we can find published, depending on the organization of their approach and the knowledge synthesis methodology used.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Hall, A., Walton, G., Information overload within the health care system: a literature review. Health Info Libr J. 21 (2004), 102–108, 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2004.00506.x.
  • Broome, M.E., Integrative literature reviews for the development of concepts. Rodgers, B.L., Knafl, K.A., (eds.) Concept development in nursing: foundations, techniques and applications., 2000, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia (USA), 231–250.
  • Ferrari, R., Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing. 24 (2015), 230–235, 10.1179/2047480615Z. 000000000329.
  • Grant, M.J., Booth, A., A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 26 (2009), 91–108, 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
  • Gálvez-Toro, A., Métodos contemporáneos de síntesis científica: una propuesta de homogeneidad. Med Clin (Barc). 121 (2003), 256–263.
  • Guirao S. Utilidad y tipos de revisión de la literatura. ENE [Online]. 2015 [consultado 18 Ene 2018];9(2). Disponible en: http://ene-enfermeria.org/ojs/index.php/ENE/article/view/495/guirao.
  • Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, traductores. Manual Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas de Intervenciones, versión 5.1.0 [actualizada marzo 2011]. [Internet]. Barcelona: Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano; 2012. [consultado 18 Ene 2018]. Disponible en: http://es.cochrane.org/sites/es.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/Manual_Cochrane_510_reduit.pdf.
  • The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2014 Ed/Supplement [online]. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014. [consultado 18 Ene 2018]. Disponible en: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/reviewersmanual-2014.pdf.
  • Whittemore, R., Chao, A., Jang, M., Minges, K.E., Park, C., Methods for knowledge synthesis: an overview. Heart Lung. 43 (2014), 453–461, 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.05.014.
  • Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews. CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. [On line]. York (UK): University of York; 2009. [consultado 18 Ene 2018]. Disponible en: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf.
  • Sobrido M. Análisis de la difusión y diseminación de las agencias de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias. [tesis doctoral]. A Coruña: Departamento de Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad de A Coruña; 2012. [consultado 18 Ene 2018]. Disponible en: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/tesis/26188.pdf.
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis: la responsabilidad de los autores, revisores, editores y patrocinadores. Med Clin (Barc). 135 (2010), 505–506.
  • Sanmamed JJ. La complementariedad de metodologías en investigación en Atención Primaria. Rev Clin Aten Primar [Online]. 2011 [consultado 18 Ene 2018]; 7. Disponible en: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/rceap/rceap_a2011m7n19/rceap_a2011m7n19a4.pdf.
  • Samnani, S.S., Vaska, M., Ahmed, S., Turin, T.C., Review typology: the basic types of reviews for synthesizing evidence for the purpose of knowledge translation. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 27 (2017), 635–641.
  • Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C.M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., Tungpunkom, P., Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 13 (2015), 132–140, 10.1097/XEB. 0000000000000055.
  • Hailey, D., Corabian, P., Harstall, C., Schneider, W., The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16 (2000), 651–656.
  • Abou-Setta, A.M., Jeyaraman, M.M., Attia, A., Al-Inany, H.G., Ferri, M., Ansari, M.T., et al. Methods for developing evidence reviews in short periods of time: A scoping review. PLoS One., 11, 2016, e0165903, 10.1371/journal.pone.0165903.
  • Colquhoun, H.L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K.K., Straus, S., Tricco, A.C., Perrier, L., et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 67 (2014), 1291–1294, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013.
  • Peters, M.D., Godfrey, C.M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., Soares, C.B., Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 13 (2015), 141–146, 10.1097/XEB. 0000000000000050.
  • Tricco, A.C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med., 13, 2015, 224, 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6.
  • Tricco, A.C., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Kastner, M., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., et al. Knowledge synthesis methods for generating or refining theory: a scoping review reveals that little guidance is available. J Clin Epidemiol. 73 (2016), 36–42, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.021.
  • Tricco, A.C., Soobiah, C., Antony, J., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., Lillie, E., et al. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. J Clin Epidemiol. 73 (2016), 19–28, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030.
  • Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol., 16, 2016, 15, 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4.
  • Straus, S.E., Kastner, M., Soobiah, C., Antony, J., Tricco, A.C., Engaging researchers on developing, using, and improving knowledge synthesis methods: introduction to a series of articles describing the results of a scoping review on emerging knowledge synthesis methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 73 (2016), 15–18, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.031.
  • Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K, Booth A. Investigación cualitativa y revisiones Cochrane. En: Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, traductores. Manual Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas de Intervenciones, versión 5.1.0 [actualizada Mar 2011]. [Internet]. Barcelona: Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano; 2012. p.579-98. [consultado 18 Ene 2018]. Disponible en: http://es.cochrane.org/sites/es.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/Manual_Cochrane_510_reduit.pdf.
  • Barnett, E., Thomas, J., Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol., 9, 2009, 59, 10.1186/1471-2288-9-59.
  • Frost, J., Garside, R., Cooper, C., Britten, N., Meta-Study as diagnostic: Toward content over form in qualitative synthesis. Qual Health Res. 26 (2016), 307–319, 10.1177/1049732315619381.
  • Campbell, R., Pound, P., Morgan, M., Daker, G., Britten, N., Pill, R., et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess. 15 (2011), 1–164, 10.3310/hta15430.
  • Mahtani V, Axpe MA, Serrano P, González-Castro I, Fernández-Vega E. Metodología para incorporar los estudios cualitativos en la evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias. Madrid: Plan Nacional para el SNS del MSC. Servicio de Evaluación del Servicio Canario de la Salud; 2006. Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias: SESCS N.°2006/01.
  • Pearson, A., White, H., Bath-Hextall, F., Salmond, S., Apostolo, J., Kirkpatrick, P., A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 13 (2015), 121–131, 10.1097/XEB. 0000000000000052.
  • Shaw, J., Downe, S., Kingdon, C., Systematic mixed-methods review of interventions, outcomes and experiences for imprisoned pregnant women. J Adv Nurs. 71 (2015), 1451–1463, 10.1111/jan.12605.
  • Shorten, A., Smith, J., Mixed methods research: expanding the evidence base. Evid Based Nurs. 20 (2017 Jul), 74–75, 10.1136/eb-2017-102699.
  • Whittemore, R., Knafl, K., The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 52 (2005), 546–553, 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x.
  • Mendes, Sasso, K.D., Silveira dCP, Cristina, R., Galvão, C.M., Revisão integrativa: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto Contexto-Enferm. 17 (2008), 758–764, 10.1590/S0104-07072008000400018.
  • Soares, C.B., Hoga, L.A., Peduzzi, M., Sangaleti, C., Yonekura, T., Silva, D.R., Integrative review: concepts and methods used in nursing. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 48 (2014), 335–345, 10.1590/S0080-6234201400002000020.
  • Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., Porritt, K., Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 13 (2015), 179–187, 10.1097/XEB. 0000000000000062.
  • Pearson, A., Meta-aggregation: emergence of the “missing” piece in qualitative synthesis. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 14 (2016), 2–3, 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003257.
  • Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Barroso J. Defining and Designing Mixed Research Synthesis Studies. Res Sch [Online]. 2006 [consultado 18 Ene 2018];13(1):29. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2809982/pdf/nihms151622.pdf.
  • Aguilera Eguía, R., ¿Revisión sistemática, revisión narrativa o metaanálisis?. Rev Soc Esp Dolor [Internet]. 21 (2014), 359–360, 10.4321/S1134-80462014000600010.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet