1 / 29

Funda ção Oswaldo Cruz Programa de Pós-graduação em Informação e Comunicação em Saúde

Qualidade das revisões sistemáticas e sua influ ência nas de cis ões de saúde Rio de Janeiro, 2012. Funda ção Oswaldo Cruz Programa de Pós-graduação em Informação e Comunicação em Saúde Disciplina : Seminários Avançados Profa . Maria Cristina Guimarães

doris
Download Presentation

Funda ção Oswaldo Cruz Programa de Pós-graduação em Informação e Comunicação em Saúde

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Qualidade das revisões sistemáticas e sua influência nas decisões de saúdeRio de Janeiro, 2012 FundaçãoOswaldo Cruz Programa de Pós-graduaçãoemInformação e ComunicaçãoemSaúde Disciplina: SemináriosAvançados Profa. Maria Cristina Guimarães Aluna: Martha Silvia MartínezSilveiraBerbert

  2. Knipschild P. Systematic reviews: some examples. BMJ 1994;309:719-21.

  3. Introdução

  4. Pai, Madhur. Introduction to Systematic Reviews. McGill University, Canada. Slides presentation .

  5. Revisões SistemáticasO que são?

  6. RevisõesSistemáticasPara queservem?

  7. RevisõesSistemáticas

  8. O quefunciona? Based on what evidence? What harm? What help?

  9. Ferramentas de construção

  10. Qualidade da Evidência DARTMOUTH BIOMEDICAL LIBRARY http://www.dartmouth.edu/~biomed/resources.htmld/guides/ebm_resources.shtml

  11. Porqueavaliar a Qualidade?

  12. Qualidade (como se publicam?) • Qualidademetodológica • Qualidade do relato • (Moher et al., 1995)

  13. Ferramentas de avaliação(como se publicam?)

  14. Resultados - Totais PERIÓDICO Tot RS ALTA MEDIA BAIXA 2011 QUAL QUALI QUALI RS NORMAS FERRAM N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) ArqBras Cardiol 3 (100) 0 (0) 3 (100) 0 (0) N N N Arq Bras Oftalmol 2 (100) 0 (0) 1 (50) 1 (50) N N N Cad SaúdePública 8 (100) 0 (0) 3 (37,5) 5 (62,5) N N N CiêncSaúdeColetiva 5 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (100) N N N Dement. Neuropsychol 2 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (100) N N N Einstein (SP) 2 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (100) S N N J Pediatr (RJ) 2 (100) 0 (0) 1 (50) 1 (50) S S N Rev Bras Med Esporte 2 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (100) S S N Rev Bras Psiquiatr 4 (100) 0 (0) 2 (50) 2 (50) S S N Rev Bras Saúde Mat Infant 3 (100) 0 (0) 1 (33,3) 2 (66,7) S N N Rev Paul Pediatr 4 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (100) S N N Rev PsiquiatrClín (SP) 2 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (100) N N N São Paulo Med J 4 (100) 2 (50) 2 (50) 0 (0) S S S

  15. Problema

  16. Pergunta da pesquisa Revisãosistemáticacomoobjetoqueproduzinformação e geracomunicação de evidências

  17. O queessasperguntamimplicam?

  18. O quepretendoincluir

  19. Como?

  20. Referências ARMSTRONG, R. et al. Guidelines for SystematicReviews in Health PromotionandPublicHealth interventions: Version2. Melbourne: University, 2007. Disponível em: < http://ph.cochrane.org/sites/ph.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Guidelines%20HP_PH%20reviews.pdf>. Acesso em: 8 jul. 2012. BERO, L. A.; JADAD, A. R. How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making. Annals of Internal Medicine, v. 127, n. 1, p. 37-42, 1997. CHALMER, I.; GLASZIOU, P. Avoidablewaste in theproductionandreportingofresearchevidence. Lancet, v. 374, n. 9683, p. 86-89, 2009. COOK, D. J.; MULROW, C. D.; HAYNES, R. B. Systematicreviews: synthesisofbestevidence for clinicaldecisions. AnnalsofInternal Medicine, v. 126, n. 5, p. 376-376, 1997. DELANEY, A. et al. The qualityofreportsofcriticalcare meta-analyses in the Cochrane databaseofsystematicreviews: anindependentappraisal. CriticalCare Medicine, v. 35, n. 2, Feb, p. 589-594, 2007.

  21. DIXON-WOOD, M. et al. The problemofappraisingqualitativeresearch. QualityandSafety in Health Care, v. 13, n. 3, p. 223-225, 2004. HIGGINS, J. P. T. et al. Cochrane handbook for systematicreviewsofinterventions. Version 5.1.0. (updatedMarch 2011). Disponível em: <http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook/ >. Acesso em: 5 jul. 2012. MEERPOHL, Joerg J. et al. Scientificvalueofsystematicreviews: surveysofeditorsof core clinicaljournals. PLosOne, v. 7, n. 5, p. e35732, 2012. MOHER, D. et al. PreferredReportingItems for SystematicReviewsand Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. AnnalsofInternal Medicine, v. 151, n. 4, 264-269, 2011. OXMAN, A. D.; GUYATT, G. H. Validationofan index ofthequalityofreviewarticles. JournalofClinicalEpidemiology, v. 44, p. 121-1278, 1991. PETTIREW, Marc; ROBERTS, Helen. SistematicReviews in Social Science: a practicalguide. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.

  22. Referências SACKS, H. et al. Meta-analysesofrandomizedcontrolledttrials. New EnglandJournalof Medicine, v. 316, n. 8, p. 450-455, 1987. SEQUEIRA-BYRON, Patrick et al. An AMSTAR assessmentofthemethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsof oral healthcareinterventionspublished in theJournalofApplied Oral Science (JAOS). JournalofApplied Oral Science, v. 19, n. 5, p. 440=447, 2011. SHEA, Beverley et al. A comparisonofthequalityof Cochrane reviewsandsystematicreviewspublished in paper-basedjournals. Evaluationandthe Health Profissions, v. 25, n. 1, p. 116-129, 2002. SHEA, Beverley et al. Externalvalidationof a measurement tool toassesssystematicreviews (AMSTAR). PLosOne, v. 2, n. 12, p. e1350, 2007. SHEA, Beverley et al. AMSTAR is a reliableandvalidmeasurement tool toassessthemethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviews. JournalofClinicalEpidemiology, v. 62, n. 10, p. 1013-1020, 2009.

  23. PREWITT, Kenneth, Schwandt, Thomas A, Straf, Miron L. Using science as evidence in public policy. Washington, The National Academy, 2012. Eden, Jill et al. Findig what works in health care. Washington: The Narional Academy,2011. May, Nicholas et al. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-,aking in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, v. 10, Suppl 1, 6–20,2005.

  24. Dixon-Woods, M. and Fitzpatrick, R. Qualitative research in systematic reviews has established a place for itself. British Medical Journal 2001, 323: 765–6. Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Young, B., Jones, D., and Sutton, A. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence: Health Development Agency, London, online at: http://www.publichealth.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=508055, 2004. Dixon-Woods, M., Shaw, R., Agarwal, S., and Smith, J. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Quality & Safety in Healthcare 2004, 13: 223–5. BAXTER, S. et al. Synthesizingdiverseevidence: the use ofprimaryqualitative data analysismethodsandlogicmodels in publichealthreviews. Public Health, v. 124, n. 2, p. 99-106, 2010. BERO, L. A.; JADAD, A. R. Howconsumersandpolicymakerscan use systematicreviews for decisionmaking. AnnalsofInternal Medicine, v. 127, n. 1, p. 37-42, 1997.

  25. LIMIEUX-CHARLES, L.;CHAMPAGNE, F. (Ed.). Usingknowledgeandevidence in healthcare: multidisciplinaryperspectives.Toronto: Universityof Toronto, 2004. p.41-69 DOBBINS, M. et al. Publichealthdecision-makers'informationalneedsandpreferences for receivingresearchevidence. WorldviewsonEvidence-BasedNursing, v. 4, n. 3, p. 156-163, 2007. NUTLEY, S. M.; WALTER, I.; DAVIES, H. T. O. Usingevidence: howresearchcaninformpublicservices. Bristol: Policy Press. 2007. 363 p. WATERS, E. Evaluatingtheeffectivenessofpublichealthinterventions: The role andactivitiesofthecochranecollaboration. JournalofEpidemiology & Community Health, v. 60, n. 4, p. 285-289, 2006.

More Related