Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasosII Cómo identificar los estudios relevantes

  1. K.S. Khan 1
  2. A. Bueno-Cavanillas 1
  3. J. Zamora 2
  1. 1 Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidad de Granada, Granada, España
  2. 2 Unidad de Bioestadística Clínica, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, España
Revista:
Semergen: revista española de medicina de familia

ISSN: 1138-3593

Ano de publicación: 2022

Número: 6

Páxinas: 431-436

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.1016/J.SEMERG.2021.12.006 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Outras publicacións en: Semergen: revista española de medicina de familia

Resumo

This article focuses on the second step of a systematic review, i.e. how to identify relevant studies for the planned review. The search, using terms related to the questions framed in the previous step, should be comprehensive. However, it is important to establish selection criteria to include relevant studies and to exclude those that might present a risk of bias at this stage. Details such as broadening the spectrum of electronic databases consulted, avoiding restricting searches to a single language, managing references correctly, and recording decisions made throughout the process are winning factors for successful study identification.

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • R. Kunz, J. Kleijnen, G. Antes, K.S. Khan Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine (2nd ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2011) Google Scholar
  • K.S. Khan, R. Kunz, J. Kleijnen, G. Antes Five steps to conducting a systematic review J R Soc Med., 96 (2003), pp. 118-121, 10.1258/JRSM.96.3.118 View PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  • K.S. Khan, A. Bueno-Cavanillas, J. Zamora Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: I Cómo formular una pregunta para la que se pueda obtener una respuesta válida Semergen. (2022) (In Press) Google Scholar
  • J. McGowan, M. Sampson, D.M. Salzwedel, E. Cogo, V. Foerster, C. Lefebvre PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement J Clin Epidemiol., 75 (2016), pp. 40-46, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  • A. Booth “Brimful of STARLITE”: toward standards for reporting literature searches J Med Libr Assoc., 94 (2006) [consultado 15 Dic 2021]. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1629442/pdf/i1536-5050-094-04-0421.pdf Google Scholar
  • K.S. Khan, A. Coomarasamy Searching for evidence to inform clinical practice Curr Obstet Gynaecol., 14 (2004), pp. 142-146, 10.1016/j.curobgyn.2003.12.006 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  • K.S. Khan, J. Kavanagh Clinical Governance Advice No 3: Searching for evidence R Coll Obstet Gynaecol [Published online]. (2001) Google Scholar
  • E. Aromataris, D. Riitano Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review Am J Nurs., 114 (2014), pp. 49-56, 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000446779.99522.f6 View PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  • Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Core principles and methods for conducting a systematic review of health, interventions In: Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care (2009), pp. 1-108 Disponible en: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic Reviews.pdf Google Scholar
  • J. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M.J. Page, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed.), John Wiley & Sons (2019) Google Scholar
Fonte de datos: Dialnet