Existen muchas listas en investigación, pero … no todas sirven para lo mismo

  1. Micaela Sánchez-Martín 1
  2. Ana Isabel Ponce Gea 1
  3. Marina Pedreño-Plana 1
  4. Francisco Javier Ibáñez-López 1
  5. Fernando Navarro-Mateu 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia, España
Revista:
Espiral. Cuadernos del profesorado

ISSN: 1988-7701

Año de publicación: 2023

Volumen: 16

Número: 33

Páginas: 81-91

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.25115/ECP.V16I33.9334 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Espiral. Cuadernos del profesorado

Resumen

En las últimas décadas se ha ido elaborando una amplia variedad de listas de comprobación para diferentes finalidades. En esta píldora metodológica nos centraremos en dar a conocer a la comunidad académica, alumnado, profesorado y colectivo investigador, la gran utilidad de las listas de: lectura crítica de los artículos científicos, de las orientadas a la mejora en redacción de la producción científica y las de evaluación del riesgo de sesgos de los artículos ya publicados. El objetivo es ayudar a clarificar la finalidad de cada una de ellas y facilitar su utilización en diferentes fases de la investigación.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165- 000
  • Balakrishnan, A., Puthean, S., Satheesh, G, MK, U., Rashid, M., Nair, S., & Thungai G. (2021). Effectiveness of blended learning in pharmacy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 16(6): e0252461. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252461
  • Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H.J., Oxman, A.D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G.E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., Norris, S., & Guyatt, G.H. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 401-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
  • Baños, R., Sánchez-Martín, M., Navarro-Mateu, F., & Granero-Gallegos, A. (2021). Educación física basada en evidencias: Ventajas e inconvenientes. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 96(35.2). https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v97i35.2.88336
  • BestBETs—BETs CA Worksheets. (s.f.). Best Evidence Topics. https://bestbets.org/links/BET-CA-worksheets.php
  • Escala PEDro (2016). PEDro. Physiotherapy Evidence Database. https://pedro.org.au/spanish/resources/pedro-scale/
  • Fichas de Lectura Crítica. (s.f.). FLC. http://www.lecturacritica.com/es/
  • Greenhalgh, T. (2019). How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-based Medicine and Healthcare (6th ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
  • Greenhalgh, T., Toon, P., Russell, J., Wong, G., Plumb, L., & Macfarlane, F. (2003). Transferability of principles of evidence based medicine to improve educational quality: Systematic review and case study of an online course in primary health care. BMJ, 326(7381), 142-145. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7381.142
  • Greenland, S., & O’Rourke, K. (2001). On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics, 2(4), 463-471. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/2.4.463
  • Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A.D., Vist, G.E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., Schünemann, H.J., & GRADE Working Group. (2008). GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 336(7650), 924-926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
  • Guyatt, G.H., & Rennie, D. (1993). Users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA, 270(17), 2096-2097. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1993.03510170086037
  • Herzog, R., Álvarez-Pasquin, M.J., Díaz, C., Del Barrio, J.L., Estrada, J.M., & Gil, Á. (2013). Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 13, 154. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-154
  • Higgins, J., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Page, M., & Welch, V. (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (6.3). John Wiley & Sons. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
  • Hong, Q.N., Gonzalez-Reyes, A., & Pluye, P. (2018). Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24(3), 459-467. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12884
  • JAMA Network (s.f.). Users’ Guide to the Medical Literature. https://jamanetwork.com/collections/44069/users-guide-to-the-medical-literature
  • Jerez Yáñez, O César Orsini Sánchez, C., y Hasbún Held, B. (2016). Atributos de una docencia de calidad en la educación superior: una revisión sistemática. Estudios Pedagógicos 42(3), 483-506. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052016000400026
  • Jüni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., & Egger, M. (1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA, 282(11), 1054-1060. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.11.1054
  • Kyriakoulis, K., Patelarou, A., Laliotis, A., Wan, A.C., Matalliotakis, M., Tsiou, C., & Patelarou, E. (2016). Educational strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to undergraduate health students: Systematic review. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 13, 34. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.34
  • Maloney, L.M., Marshall, R.T., Werfel, P.A., & Johnson, S.E. (2019). Using a Journal Club Series to Introduce Paramedic Students to Research Fundamentals and Critical Appraisal of Medical Literature. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 34(4), 449-453. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X19004618
  • Martínez de Guzman, M., Soler Ferrería, F.B., Álvarez Muñoz, F.J., Albaladejo Martínez, J.A., Serrano Bueno, F. J., & Navarro-Mateu, F. (2019). Club de Lectura Crítica del Hospital Psiquiátrico Román Alberca: Una experiencia práctica. Hospital Psiquiátrico Román Aberca. https://www.murciasalud.es/publicaciones.php?op=mostrar_publicacion&id=2714&idsec=88
  • Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D.F. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. The Lancet, 354(9193), 1896-1900. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D.G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, 1549-1676, e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  • Morales-Toro, V., Guillén-Riquelme, A., & Quevedo-Blas, R. (2029). Maltrato infantil y trastornos mentales en delincuentes juveniles: Una revisión sistemática. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 17(3), 218-238. https://doi.org/10.35869/reined.v17i3.2157
  • Mulrow, C.D. (1987). The medical review article: State of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine, 106(3), 485-488. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485
  • O’Brien, B.C., Harris, I.B., Beckman, T.J., Reed, D.A., & Cook, D.A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(9), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
  • Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C…, & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  • Page, M.J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J…, & McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(160). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
  • Panic, N., Leoncini, E., de Belvis, G., Ricciardi, W., & Boccia, S. (2013). Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PloS One, 8(12), e83138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138
  • Patelarou, A.E., Kyriakoulis, K.G., Stamou, A.A., Laliotis, A., Sifaki-Pistolla, D., Matalliotakis, M., Prokopakis, E., & Patelarou, E. (2017). Approaches to teach evidence-based practice among health professionals: An overview of the existing evidence. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 8, 455-464. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S134475
  • Pussegoda, K., Turner, L., Garritty, C., Mayhew, A., Skidmore, B., Stevens, A., Boutron, I., Sarkis-Onofre, R., Bjerre, L.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Altman, D.G., & Moher, D. (2017). Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2
  • RedCaspe (s.f.) Programa de Habilidades en Lectura Crítica Español. https://redcaspe.org/
  • Rethlefsen, M.L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A.P., Moher, D., Page, M.J., Koffel, J.B., & PRISMA-S Group. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
  • Sacks, H.S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., Ancona-Berk, V.A., & Chalmers, T.C. (1987). Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. The New England Journal of Medicine, 316(8), 450-455. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198702193160806
  • Sánchez, M.C., Navarro-Mateu, F., Castillo Bueno, M.D., Menárquez Puche, J.F., & Sánchez Sánchez, J.A. (2007). Atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia: Su aplicación a la práctica clínica. Consejería de Sanidad de la Región de Murcia. https://www.murciasalud.es/publicaciones.php?op=mostrar_publicacion&id=103&idsec=88
  • Sánchez-Martín, M., Navarro-Mateu, F., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2022). Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Education [Las Revisiones Sistemáticas y la Educación Basada en Evidencias] Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado., 15(30), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.25115/ecp.v15i30.7860
  • Sánchez-Martín, M., Plana, Pedreño, M.., Gea, A.I.P., & Navarro-Mateu, F. (2023). And, at first, it was the research question… The PICO, PECO, SPIDER and FINER formats [Y, al principio, fue la pregunta de investigación … Los formatos PICO, PECO, SPIDER y FINER]. Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado., 16(32), 126-136. https://doi.org/10.25115/ecp.v16i32.9102
  • Sánchez-Meca, J. (2022). Revisiones sistemáticas y meta-análisis en Educación: Un tutorial. Revista Interuniversitaria de Investigación en Tecnología Educativa, 13, 5-40. https://doi.org/10.6018/riite.545451
  • Schulz, K.F., Altman, D.G., Moher, D., & CONSORT Group. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials, 11, 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-32
  • Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L.A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
  • Shea, B.J., Reeves, B.C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., & Henry, D.A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 358, j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
  • Stang, A. (2010). Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European Journal of Epidemiology, 25(9), 603-605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
  • von Elm, E., Altman, D.G., Egger, M., Pocock, S.J., Gotzsche, P.C., & Vandenbroucke, J.P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLOS. Medicine, 4, 1549-1676, e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
  • Vu-Ngoc, H., Elawady, S.S., Mehyar, G.M., Abdelhamid, A.H., Mattar, O.M., Halhouli, O., Vuong, N.L., Ali, C.D. M., Hassan, U.H., Kien, N.D., Hirayama, K., & Huy, N.T. (2018). Quality of flow diagram in systematic review and/or meta-analysis. PloS One, 13(6), e0195955. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195955
  • Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J.P.T., Caldwell, D.M., Reeves, B.C., Shea, B., Davies, P., Kleijnen, J., & Churchill, R. (2016). ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69, 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
  • Whiting, P.F., Rutjes, A.W.S., Westwood, M.E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J.J., Reitsma, J.B., Leeflang, M.M.G., Sterne, J. A.C., Bossuyt, P.M.M., & QUADAS-2 Group. (2011). QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(8), 529-536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet