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
Aldizkaria:
Espiral. Cuadernos del profesorado

ISSN: 1988-7701

Argitalpen urtea: 2023

Alea: 16

Zenbakia: 33

Orrialdeak: 81-91

Mota: Artikulua

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

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Espiral. Cuadernos del profesorado

Laburpena

In recent decades, a wide variety of checklists have been developed with different purposes. Therefore, in this methodological pill we will focus on making the academic community, students, teachers and research collective aware of the great utility of the lists of: critical reading of scientific articles, of those aimed at improving the writing of the scientific production and those of evaluation of the risk of biases of the already published articles. The objective is to help clarify the purpose of each of them, and to facilitate their use in different phases of the investigation.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • 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
Datuen iturria: Dialnet