Comunicación científica (XX). Conocimientos básicos para leer (y escribir) un artículo científico (7)Listas de comprobación de revisiones sistemáticas
- Francisco Javier González de Dios
- M González Muñoz
- Adolfo Alonso Arroyo
- Rafael Aleixandre Benavent
ISSN: 0001-6640
Año de publicación: 2015
Volumen: 73
Número: 2
Páginas: 47-51
Tipo: Artículo
Otras publicaciones en: Acta pediátrica española
Resumen
Currently, quality systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis), and with a well-defined methodology, has been considered one of the best sources of available scientific evidence. They have great value (and popularity) in the cycle of generation, transmission and implementation of knowledge, both for its value per se as being the starting point of clinical practice guidelines and/or reports of health technology assessment. But a systematic review is not good per se (as neither is a clinical trial). To have quality, it should describe the methodology in a complete and transparent manner. To check the quality of systematic reviews we have the PRISMA statement, a checklist for this type of study that replaces the QUOROM previous statement. Therefore, we already have the "prism"; now we have to use it and we have prove that it improves the quality of systematic reviews.