Fundamentals and Method of Systematic Reviews
Fundamentos y Método de las Revisiones Sistemáticas
Article Sidebar
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
The articles must be original, must not have been published or submitted to other journals.
Once submitted to the magazine Areté. Authors should indicate in their first article.
In the letter of originality is written: Fulfilling the requirements demanded by your Journal, I send to you the article entitled: XXXXX so that its publication is considered, indicating the following:
1. It is an original article, with research topics in XXX, that complies with the rules for the publication of articles that are detailed in your journal.
2. It is an unpublished article, which has not been sent for review and is not published, partially or totally, in any other scientific journal, national or foreign.
3. There are no conflicts of interest with state or private organizations that may affect the content, results or conclusions of this publication.
4. The article has been read and approved by each of the authors, and therefore the data and references to already published materials are duly identified with their respective credit and included in the bibliographic notes and in the citations that stand out as such.
5. In the event of publication, I give free of charge all the author's economic rights deriving from the article in question, understanding the transfer of the following rights: reproduction in all its modalities, transformation or adaptation, public communication, distribution and, in general , any type of exploitation that can be carried out by any means known or known.
Main Article Content
Systematic reviews (SR) are qualitative and, sometimes, quantitative syntheses on the available evidence regarding a specific topic. This work contextualizes its origin in the evidence-based medicine movement and defines it as a type of health research aimed to identify, critically appraise and synthesize previous scientific knowledge. The SR method is presented here in a series of steps: objective, search and selection of studies, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis, meta-analysis and interpretation of results. The internal validity, precision and external validity of the results are explained as criteria to assess the quality of the evidence. The quality of the evidence, together with the quantity and consistency, are the basis on which recommendations can be made. The SR method is useful in professional practice, where the management of up-to-date scientific evidence is required to make decisions on diagnoses or interventions daily, as well as a type of research that can be implemented in undergraduate or graduate studies, since it could arrive at original results by synthesizing the previous knowledge.
Downloads
Publication Facts
Reviewer profiles N/A
Author statements
Indexed in
- Editor & editorial board
- profiles
- Academic society
- Bogotá: Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana
- Publisher
- Bogotá: Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana
To learn about these publication facts, click 
PF is maintained by the Public Knowledge Project
Article Details
Aymerich, M., Estrada, M.D., Jovell, A.J. (1999). Revisión sistemática de la evidencia científica. En: Jovell AJ, Aymerich M. Evidencia científica y toma de decisiones en sanidad. Monografies Mèdiques de l’Acadèmia
de Ciències Mèdiques de Catalunya i de Balears. Barcelona.
Brady, M.C., Kelly, H., Godwin, J., Enderby, P., Campbell, P. (2016). Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 6. Art. No.: CD000425. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub4
1002/14651858.CD000425.pub4.
Branski, R. C., Cukier-Blaj, S., Pusic, A., Cano, S. J., Klassen, A., Mener, D., Kraus, D. H. (2010). Measuring quality of life in dysphonic patients: a systematic review of content development in patient-reported outcomes measures. Journal of Voice, 193-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.05.006
Cochrane, A.L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services. Nuffield Trust. Cooke, A., Smith, D., Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative health research, 22(10), 1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
Di Paoli, F., Berra, S., Paolini, G. (2020) Revisión Sistemática de las Características de los Instrumentos de Autopercepción de la Voz disponibles en Argentina y en el contexto internacional. Trabajo Final de Investigación para la Licenciatura en Fonoaudiología. Escuela de Fonoaudiología (FCM, UNC), Córdoba, Argentina.
Franic, D. M., Bramlett, R. E., Bothe, A. C. (2005). Psychometric evaluation of disease specific quality of life instruments in voice disorders. J Voice, 300-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.03.003
Grau Magaña, M., Estrada Sabadell, M.D. (2020). Eficacia, efectividad, eficiencia y seguridad de la implantación bilateral de implantes auditivos activos: implante activo de oído medio, implante de tronco cerebral e implante de conducción ósea. Barcelona: Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya. Departament de Salut. Generalitat de Catalunya (Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias).
Grupo de trabajo para la actualización del Manual de Elaboración de GPC (2016). Elaboración de Guías de Práctica Clínica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Actualización del Manual Metodológico [Internet]. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad; Zaragoza: Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud (IACS); [Febrero 2018]. Disponible en: http://portal.guiasalud.es/emanuales/ elaboracion_2/?capitulo
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 (Clinical research ed.), 336(7650), 924–926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S. (editors). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Disponible en: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Kloda, L. A., Boruff, J. T., Cavalcante, A. S. (2020). A comparison of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) to a new, alternative clinical question framework for search skills, search results, and self-efficacy: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 108(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.5195/ jmla.2020.739 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.739
Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., & Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC health services research, 14, 579. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913- 014-0579-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP journal club, 123(3), A12–A13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12
Sackett, D. L., & Wennberg, J. E. (1997). Choosing the best research design for each question. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 315(7123), 1636. https:// doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7123.1636 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7123.1636
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 312(7023), 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.312.7023.71 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Group. SIGN 50: A guideline developers’ handbook. Edinburgh: SIGN Publication No.50; 2011. Edición revisada en 2011. Disponible en: https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign50_2011.pdf
Sinha, Y., Silove, N., Williams, K., Hayen, A. (2004). Auditory integration training and other sound therapies for autism spectrum disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 1. Art. No.: CD003681. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003681.pub2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003681.pub2
Speyer, R., Kim, J. H., Doma, K., Chen, Y. W., Denman, D., Phyland, D., Parsons, L., Cordier, R. (2019). Measurement properties of self-report questionnaires on health-related quality of life and functional health status in dysphonia: a systematic review using the COSMIN taxonomy. Quality of life research, 28(2), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136- 018-2001-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2001-6
Wildridge, V., Bell, L. (2002). How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/ management information. Health information and libraries journal, 19(2), 113–115. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378.x
Zraick, R. I., & Atcherson, S. R. (2012). Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaires for Use With Persons With Dysphonia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.01.009
Journal of Voice, 635-641.
Zraick, R. I., & Risner, B. Y. (2008). Assessment of quality of life in persons with voice disorders. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, 188-93 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0b013e3282febd10
Citations
