RESUMO
La investigación en salud es la base del conocimiento médico y de las recomendaciones en los sistemas de salud. Por ello, la elección de desenlaces apropiados en estudios de intervenciones terapéuticas es un paso fundamental en la producción de evidencia y, posteriormente, para la toma de decisiones. En este artículo proponemos tres factores clave para la elección de desenlaces: la inclusión de desenlaces reportados por pacientes, ya que ponen el foco del efecto de la intervención en la percepción que tienen los propios pacientes de su estado de salud y calidad de vida; la consideración de desenlaces clínicamente relevantes, los cuales son mediciones directas del estado de salud del paciente y, por ende serán determinantes en la toma de decisiones; y la utilización de herramienta que estandariza y permite la homogeneización en la medición e interpretación de desenlaces, facilitando la producción y posterior síntesis de evidencia apropiada para el ecosistema de evidencia. La correcta elección de los desenlaces permitirá que la evidencia generada de estos estudios ayude a los tomadores de decisiones en salud y los profesionales clínicos a entregar cuidados apropiados centrados en el paciente y a optimizar el uso de recursos en salud e investigación clínica.
Health research is the foundation of medical knowledge and healthcare system recommendations. Therefore, choosing appropriate outcomes in studies of therapeutic interventions is a fundamental step in producing evidence and, subsequently, for decision-making. In this article, we propose three key factors for the choice of outcomes: the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes, since they focus on the patient's perception of their health status and quality of life; the consideration of clinically relevant outcomes, which are direct measurements of the patient's health status and, therefore, will be decisive in decision-making; and the use of core outcome sets, a tool that standardizes the measurement and interpretation of outcomes, facilitating the production and synthesis of appropriate evidence for the evidence ecosystem. The correct choice of outcomes will help health decision-makers and clinicians deliver appropriate patient-centered care and optimize the use of resources in healthcare and clinical research.
RESUMO
Health research is the foundation of medical knowledge and healthcare system recommendations. Therefore, choosing appropriate outcomes in studies of therapeutic interventions is a fundamental step in producing evidence and, subsequently, for decision-making. In this article, we propose three key factors for the choice of outcomes: the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes, since they focus on the patient's perception of their health status and quality of life; the consideration of clinically relevant outcomes, which are direct measurements of the patient's health status and, therefore, will be decisive in decision-making; and the use of core outcome sets, a tool that standardizes the measurement and interpretation of outcomes, facilitating the production and synthesis of appropriate evidence for the evidence ecosystem. The correct choice of outcomes will help health decision-makers and clinicians deliver appropriate patient-centered care and optimize the use of resources in healthcare and clinical research.
La investigación en salud es la base del conocimiento médico y de las recomendaciones en los sistemas de salud. Por ello, la elección de desenlaces apropiados en estudios de intervenciones terapéuticas es un paso fundamental en la producción de evidencia y, posteriormente, para la toma de decisiones. En este artículo proponemos tres factores clave para la elección de desenlaces: la inclusión de desenlaces reportados por pacientes, ya que ponen el foco del efecto de la intervención en la percepción que tienen los propios pacientes de su estado de salud y calidad de vida; la consideración de desenlaces clínicamente relevantes, los cuales son mediciones directas del estado de salud del paciente y, por ende serán determinantes en la toma de decisiones; y la utilización de herramienta que estandariza y permite la homogeneización en la medición e interpretación de desenlaces, facilitando la producción y posterior síntesis de evidencia apropiada para el ecosistema de evidencia. La correcta elección de los desenlaces permitirá que la evidencia generada de estos estudios ayude a los tomadores de decisiones en salud y los profesionales clínicos a entregar cuidados apropiados centrados en el paciente y a optimizar el uso de recursos en salud e investigación clínica.
Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Tomada de Decisões , Nível de Saúde , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Assistência Centrada no Paciente , Qualidade de Vida , Humanos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Comportamento de Escolha , Pesquisa BiomédicaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) is the main reference database in the region; however, the way in which this resource is used in Cochrane systematic reviews has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: To assess the search methods of Cochrane reviews that used LILACS as a source of information and explore the Cochrane community's perceptions about this resource. METHODS: We identified all Cochrane reviews of interventions published during 2019, which included LILACS as a source of information, and analysed their search methods and also ran a survey through the Cochrane Community. RESULTS: We found 133 Cochrane reviews that reported the full search strategies, identifying heterogeneity in search details. The respondents to our survey highlighted many areas for improvement in the use of LILACS, including the usability of the search platform for this purpose. DISCUSSION: The use and reporting of LILACS in Cochrane reviews demonstrate inconsistencies, as evidenced by the analysis of search reports from systematic reviews and surveys conducted among members of the Cochrane community. CONCLUSION: With better guidance on how LILACS database is structured, information specialists working on Cochrane reviews should be able to make more effective use of this unique resource.
Assuntos
Serviços de Informação , Medicina , Humanos , Publicações , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
The increasing production of primary research and literature reviews in the last decades has made it necessary to develop a new methodological design to synthesize the evidence: the overviews. An overview is a type of evidence synthesis that uses systematic reviews as the unit of analysis, with the aim of extracting and analyzing the results for a new or broader research question, helping the shared decision-making processes. The aim of this article is to introduce the reader to this type of evidence summaries, highlighting the differences between overviews and other types of synthesis, the unique methodological aspects of overviews, and future challenges. This is the twelfth article from a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology.
El aumento de la producción de investigación primaria y de las revisiones de la literatura durante las últimas décadas ha hecho necesario el desarrollo de un nuevo diseño metodológico para sintetizar la evidencia: los overviews. Un overview es un diseño de síntesis de evidencia que toma como unidad de análisis a las revisiones sistemáticas, con el objetivo de extraer y analizar los resultados para una pregunta de interés nueva o más amplia, ayudando así a mejorar los procesos de toma de decisiones informadas. El objetivo de este artículo es introducir al lector a este tipo de resúmenes de evidencia, destacando las diferencias con los otros tipos de síntesis de evidencia, los aspectos metodológicos particulares de los overviews, y los desafíos pendientes. Este artículo es el duodécimo de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica.
Assuntos
Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Estatística como AssuntoRESUMO
El aumento de la producción de investigación primaria y de las revisiones de la literatura durante las últimas décadas ha hecho necesario el desarrollo de un nuevo diseño metodológico para sintetizar la evidencia: los overviews. Un overview es un diseño de síntesis de evidencia que toma como unidad de análisis a las revisiones sistemáticas, con el objetivo de extraer y analizar los resultados para una pregunta de interés nueva o más amplia, ayudando así a mejorar los procesos de toma de decisiones informadas. El objetivo de este artículo es introducir al lector a este tipo de resúmenes de evidencia, destacando las diferencias con los otros tipos de síntesis de evidencia, los aspectos metodológicos particulares de los overviews, y los desafíos pendientes. Este artículo es el duodécimo de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica.
The increasing production of primary research and literature reviews in the last decades has made it necessary to develop a new methodological design to synthesize the evidence: the overviews. An overview is a type of evidence synthesis that uses systematic reviews as the unit of analysis, with the aim of extracting and analyzing the results for a new or broader research question, helping the shared decision-making processes. The aim of this article is to introduce the reader to this type of evidence summaries, highlighting the differences between overviews and other types of synthesis, the unique methodological aspects of overviews, and future challenges. This is the twelfth article from a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology.
Assuntos
Humanos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Estatística como Assunto , Revisões Sistemáticas como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Diabetic macular oedema (DME) is a worldwide major cause of low vision and blindness. Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) constitutes an effective treatment. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are synthesis documents that seek to improve patient care. OBJECTIVES: To identify CPGs that make anti-VEGF recommendations for DME and to assess their reporting quality and their considerations when making recommendations. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: CPGs published between December 2009 and December 2019 that make explicit anti-VEGF recommendations in DME. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Sensitive search strategy in Embase, Google Scholar and hand-searching on 165 websites. METHODS: We extracted information from each CPG with a previously piloted sheet. Two independent authors applied theAppraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation tool (AGREE-II) assessment for each CPG. RESULTS: The 21 included CPGs recommend anti-VEGF for DME, but there is a wide variation among the clinical aspects included, such as location of DME, visual acuity required, therapeutical alternatives or discontinuation. Most have a poor quality of reporting based on the AGREE-II tool assessment, especially those developed by ophthalmological societies, those that have an exclusive content about DME, and those where most of their authors disclose conflict of interest (COI) with pharmaceutical industry or where their authors did not report COIs. Pharmaceutical-sponsored CPGs did not use systematic reviews (SRs) to support their recommendations. Very few recommendations consider patient values and preferences, equity, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the CPGs that made recommendations of anti-VEGF for DME have poor quality of reporting, do not use SRs and do not consider patients' values and preferences.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus , Retinopatia Diabética , Edema Macular , Humanos , Edema Macular/diagnóstico , Edema Macular/tratamento farmacológico , Edema Macular/etiologia , Ranibizumab/uso terapêutico , Fatores de Crescimento Endotelial , Fator A de Crescimento do Endotélio Vascular , Retinopatia Diabética/tratamento farmacológico , Retinopatia Diabética/complicações , Injeções Intravítreas , Inibidores da Angiogênese/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
The exponential growth of currently available evidence has made it necessary to collect, filter, critically appraise, and synthesize biomedical information to keep up to date. In this sense, systematic reviews are a helpful tool and can be reliable sources to assist in evidence-based decision-making. Systematic reviews are defined as secondary research or syntheses of evidence focused on a specific question that -- based on a structured methodology -- make it possible to identify, select, critically appraise, and summarize findings from relevant studies. Systematic reviews have several potential advantages, such as minimizing biases or obtaining more accurate results. The reliability of the evidence presented in systematic reviews is determined, amongst other factors, by the quality of their methodology and the included studies. To conduct a systematic review, a series of steps must be followed: the formulation of a research question using the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes (PICO) format; an exhaustive literature search; the selection of relevant studies; the critical appraisal of the data obtained from the included studies; the synthesis of results, often using statistical methods (meta-analysis); and finally, estimating the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. In this methodological note, we will define the basic concepts of systematic reviews, their methods, and their limitations.
El crecimiento exponencial de evidencia disponible actualmente ha hecho necesario recopilar, filtrar, valorar críticamente y sintetizar la información biomédica para mantenerse actualizado. En este sentido, las revisiones sistemáticas constituyen una herramienta útil y pueden ser fuentes confiables para asistir a la toma de decisiones basadas en evidencia. Definimos como revisiones sistemáticas a aquellas investigaciones secundarias o síntesis de evidencia focalizadas en una pregunta específica que, a partir de una metodología estructurada, permiten identificar, seleccionar, valorar críticamente y resumir los hallazgos de estudios relevantes. Las revisiones sistemáticas presentan varias ventajas potenciales, tales como la minimización de sesgos o la obtención de resultados de mayor precisión. La confiabilidad de la evidencia presentada en las revisiones sistemáticas está determinada, entre otros factores, por su calidad metodológica, pero también por la calidad de los estudios incluidos. Para realizar una revisión sistemática, se debe seguir una serie de pasos que incluyen la formulación de una pregunta de investigación a partir del formato PICO; una búsqueda bibliográfica exhaustiva; la selección de los estudios relevantes; la valoración crítica de los datos obtenidos a partir de los estudios incluidos; la síntesis de resultados, a menudo mediante métodos estadísticos (metanálisis); y finalmente una estimación de la certeza de evidencia para cada desenlace. En esta nota metodológica definiremos los conceptos básicos sobre revisiones sistemáticas, sus métodos y sus limitaciones.
Assuntos
Pessoal de Saúde , Humanos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , ViésRESUMO
El crecimiento exponencial de evidencia disponible actualmente ha hecho necesario recopilar, filtrar, valorar críticamente y sintetizar la información biomédica para mantenerse actualizado. En este sentido, las revisiones sistemáticas constituyen una herramienta útil y pueden ser fuentes confiables para asistir a la toma de decisiones basadas en evidencia. Definimos como revisiones sistemáticas a aquellas investigaciones secundarias o síntesis de evidencia focalizadas en una pregunta específica que, a partir de una metodología estructurada, permiten identificar, seleccionar, valorar críticamente y resumir los hallazgos de estudios relevantes. Las revisiones sistemáticas presentan varias ventajas potenciales, tales como la minimización de sesgos o la obtención de resultados de mayor precisión. La confiabilidad de la evidencia presentada en las revisiones sistemáticas está determinada, entre otros factores, por su calidad metodológica, pero también por la calidad de los estudios incluidos. Para realizar una revisión sistemática, se debe seguir una serie de pasos que incluyen la formulación de una pregunta de investigación a partir del formato PICO; una búsqueda bibliográfica exhaustiva; la selección de los estudios relevantes; la valoración crítica de los datos obtenidos a partir de los estudios incluidos; la síntesis de resultados, a menudo mediante métodos estadísticos (metanálisis); y finalmente una estimación de la certeza de evidencia para cada desenlace. En esta nota metodológica definiremos los conceptos básicos sobre revisiones sistemáticas, sus métodos y sus limitaciones.
The exponential growth of currently available evidence has made it necessary to collect, filter, critically appraise, and synthesize biomedical information to keep up to date. In this sense, systematic reviews are a helpful tool and can be reliable sources to assist in evidence-based decision-making. Systematic reviews are defined as secondary research or syntheses of evidence focused on a specific question that -- based on a structured methodology -- make it possible to identify, select, critically appraise, and summarize findings from relevant studies. Systematic reviews have several potential advantages, such as minimizing biases or obtaining more accurate results. The reliability of the evidence presented in systematic reviews is determined, amongst other factors, by the quality of their methodology and the included studies. To conduct a systematic review, a series of steps must be followed: the formulation of a research question using the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes (PICO) format; an exhaustive literature search; the selection of relevant studies; the critical appraisal of the data obtained from the included studies; the synthesis of results, often using statistical methods (meta-analysis); and finally, estimating the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. In this methodological note, we will define the basic concepts of systematic reviews, their methods, and their limitations.
Assuntos
Pessoal de Saúde , Viés , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Revisões Sistemáticas como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic disturbed mental health of healthcare personnel. Residents of the specialization programs could be at risk, since they were reassigned in their functions. Aim: To describe the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on symptoms of depression, stress, anxiety and resilient coping in residents of Anesthesiology, Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine MATERIAL AND METHODS: Residents were invited to answer an online survey containing the DASS-21 scale for anxiety, stress and depression symptoms and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) for resilience skills. RESULTS: Fifty four out of 90 residents answered the survey. Eighteen to 24% of respondents had symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress at severe and extremely severe levels. Those with severe and extremely severe symptoms had also the lowest score on the BRCS resilience scale. We did not find an association between severity of symptoms and gender. Discussion: A proportion of respondent residents had severe psychological symptoms and lower resilience scores during the COVID-19 pandemic.