Pasos para la búsqueda de información en una revisión sistemática

Muy buenos días, leyendo los blogs de otros compañeros. me he encontrado un Post muy interesante e ilustrativo, que habla sobre las revisiones sistemáticas.

os adjunto los enlaces, para que los veáis.

En el post de la compañera Concepción Campos y su blog Bibliogetafe.

https://ccamposhugf.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/pasos-para-la-busqueda-de-informacion-en-una-revision-sistematica-parte-i/

hay un importante apartado donde habla del trabajo de las revisiones sistemáticas, y de la colaboración multidisciplinar (medicos, investigadores, bibliotecarios, etc)…

 

Y un blog muy interesante sobre Revisiones Sistemáticas es el del compañero Dr. Arturo Martin Carvajal, os dejo el enlace.

 

http://revisionessistematicas.blogspot.com.es/

 

 

EUnetHTA methodological guideline

EUnetHTA methodological guideline “Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness”

Más información en: http://www.eunethta.eu/outputs/eunethta-methodological-guideline-process-information-retrieval-systematic-reviews-and-healt

Revision sobre Pancreatitis Aguda en la revista Lancet

Revision sobre Pancreatitis Aguda en la revista Lancet

Summary

Acute pancreatitis, an inflammatory disorder of the pancreas, is the leading cause of admission to hospital for gastrointestinal disorders in the USA and many other countries. Gallstones and alcohol misuse are long-established risk factors, but several new causes have emerged that, together with new aspects of pathophysiology, improve understanding of the disorder. As incidence (and admission rates) of acute pancreatitis increase, so does the demand for effective management. We review how to manage patients with acute pancreatitis, paying attention to diagnosis, differential diagnosis, complications, prognostic factors, treatment, and prevention of second attacks, and the possible transition from acute to chronic pancreatitis.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2960649-8/fulltext

La importancia de un bibliotecario en las revisiones sistemáticas.

Lo cual ratifica  a << La misión del bibliotecario>> de José Ortega y Gasset, escrito en 1936.

https://emastromatteo.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mision_bibliotecario.pdf

Rethlefsen ML, Farrel AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015; in press. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025

Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews

Abstract

Objective

To determine whether librarian and information specialist authorship was associated with better reported systematic review search quality.

Study Design and Setting

Systematic reviews from high impact general internal medicine journals were reviewed for search quality characteristics and reporting quality by independent reviewers using three instruments, including a checklist of Institute of Medicine Recommended Standards for the Search Process and a scored modification of the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies instrument.

Results

The level of librarian and information specialist participation was significantly associated with search reproducibility from reported search strategies (X2=23.5, p<.0001). Librarian co-authored systematic reviews had significantly higher odds of meeting 8 of 13 analyzed search standards than those with no librarian participation and 6 more than those with mentioned librarian participation. One-way ANOVA showed that differences in total search quality scores between all three groups were statistically significant (F2,267 = 10.1233, p<.0001).

Conclusions

Problems remain with systematic review search quality and reporting. Systematic reviews with librarian or information specialist co-authors are correlated with significantly higher quality reported search strategies. To minimize bias in systematic reviews, authors and editors could encourage librarian engagement in systematic reviews including authorship as a potential way to help improve documentation of the search strategy.

Keywords

  • Librarians;
  • Publishing;
  • standards;
  • Quality Control;
  • systematic review;
  • authorship
Melissa L Rethlefsen: No financial conflict of interest. Ann M Farrell: No financial conflict of interest. Leah C Osterhaus Trzasko: No financial conflict of interest. Tara J Brigham: No financial conflict of interest.

Funding: This study had no funding.

Data sharing: Full datasets and technical appendix available from the corresponding author at mlrethlefsen@gmail.com

How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature.

Interesante articulo en la revista JAMA:

How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature.

JAMA. 2014 Jul;312(2):171-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5559.
How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature.
Murad MH1, Montori VM2, Ioannidis JP3, Jaeschke R4, Devereaux PJ5, Prasad K6, Neumann I7, Carrasco-Labra A8, Agoritsas T9, Hatala R10, Meade MO11,Wyer P12, Cook DJ5, Guyatt G4.
Author information
Abstract
Clinical decisions should be based on the totality of the best evidence and not the results of individual studies. When clinicians apply the results of a systematic review or meta-analysis to patient care, they should start by evaluating the credibility of the methods of the systematic review, ie, the extent to which these methods have likely protected against misleading results. Credibility depends on whether the review addressed a sensible clinical question; included an exhaustive literature search; demonstrated reproducibility of the selection and assessment of studies; and presented results in a useful manner. For reviews that are sufficiently credible, clinicians must decide on the degree of confidence in the estimates that the evidence warrants (quality of evidence). Confidence depends on the risk of bias in the body of evidence; the precision and consistency of the results; whether the results directly apply to the patient of interest; and the likelihood of reporting bias. Shared decision making requires understanding of the estimates of magnitude of beneficial and harmful effects, and confidence in those estimates.
PMID:

25005654

Interesante artículo sobre prevención de Fracturas en el Annals Internal Medicine.

El Annals of Internal Medicine ha publicado  un artículo titulado  Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatments to Prevent Fractures: An Updated Systematic Review.

Background: Osteoporosis is a major contributor to the propensity to fracture among older adults, and various pharmaceuticals are available to treat it.

Purpose: To update a review about the benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments used to prevent fractures in adults at risk.

Más informacion en el blog del compañero Dr. Rafael Bravo.

Os dejo el enlace:

http://rafabravo.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/osteoporosis-mucho-ruido-y-pocas-nueces-1/

Blog sobre revisiones sistemáticas.

También os quería comentar un blog muy interesante sobre revisiones sistemáticas….

http://revisionessistematicas.blogspot.com.es/

Termino con …..

“Cuando escribo estas añoranzas en una mesa pobre, atestada de lápices y de libros; cuando pienso que el pan y la sopa caliente que se comen en mi casa los gano con mi trabajo de escritos y profesor; cuando pago el precio ecuánime de mi libertad espiritual, no cambio esta olvidada calma por el compromiso y la traición que están en la cuenta corriente de muchos triunfadores”.
Mariano Picón Salas (Intelectual visionario de Venezuela).