Mapeamento das evidências das revisões sistemáticas de oftalmologia da base de dados cochrane.
Carregando...
Arquivos
Data
2018-11-27
Autores
Bissoli, Shaira Ferrari Rodor
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
Bissoli SFR. Mapeamento das evidências das revisões sistemáticas de oftalmologia da base de dados Cochrane. [dissertação]. Botucatu, SP: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Estadual Paulista; 2018. Justificativa e objetivos: A Colaboração Cochrane visa oferecer, por meio da publicação de revisões sistemáticas, informações atualizadas, objetivas e com evidências consistentes para a prática clínica e para o estabelecimento de políticas de saúde. Entretanto, verifica-se, frequentemente, uma inconsistência de evidências e incapacidade de gerar recomendações. O objetivo desse estudo foi analisar as revisões sistemáticas do Grupo Oftalmologia da Colaboração Cochrane e mapear sua utilidade para a prática clínica e para a pesquisa científica. Método: Realizou-se estudo transversal com análise de todas as revisões sistemáticas publicadas no Grupo Oftalmologia da Colaboração Cochrane até maio de 2018, verificando-se qual o tipo de recomendação para a prática clínica e para a pesquisa científica, por meio da análise das conclusões de seus autores. Além disso, computou-se o número de ensaios clínicos e meta-análises por revisão sistemática e por subespecialidade, por ano. Resultados: 202 revisões foram obtidas no período. Evidências que apoiam a intervenção, com recomendação para a realização de mais estudos ou sem recomendação para mais estudos: 36,3% [IC 95% 36,2-36,4] e 5,0% [IC 95% 4,8-5,1], respectivamente. Evidências contrárias à intervenção, com recomendação para realização de mais estudos ou sem recomendação para mais estudos: 3,0% [IC 95% 2,8-3,1] e 3,5% [IC 95% 3,3-3,6], respectivamente. Ausência de evidências, com recomendação para a realização de mais estudos ou sem recomendação para mais estudos: 51,2% [IC 95% 55,1-55,3] e 1% [IC 95% 0,9-1,1], respectivamente. Do total, 90,5% das revisões sugerem a realização de mais estudos independentemente dos resultados obtidos. O número médio de ensaios clínicos nas revisões foi de 7,4, variando entre zero e 137, e o número médio de meta-análises foi igual a 3,1, variando entre zero e 26. Conclusão: A maioria das revisões sistemáticas do Grupo de Oftalmologia da Cochrane apresenta insuficiência ou ausência de evidências para recomendar determinada intervenção na prática clínica e recomenda a realização de novos estudos clínicos controlados e aleatorizados.
Bissoli SFR. Mapping of the evidences of systematic reviews of Ophthalmology Cochrane database. [dissertation]. Botucatu, SP: Botucatu Medical School, State University of São Paulo 2018. Rationale and objectives: The Cochrane Collaboration aims to provide, through the publication of systematic reviews, up-to-date, objective information and with consistent evidence for clinical practice and for the establishment of health policies. However, there is often an inconsistency of evidence and inability to generate recommendations. The objective of this study was to analyze the systematic reviews of the Cochrane Collaboration Ophthalmology Group and to map its usefulness to clinical practice and to scientific research. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out with an analysis of all the systematic reviews published in the Ophthalmology Group of the Cochrane Collaboration until May 2018, confirming the type of recommendation for clinical practice and for scientific research, through analysis of the conclusions of its authors. In addition, we counted the number of clinical trials and meta-analyzes by systematic review and by subspecialty, per year. Results: 202 revisions were obtained in the period. Evidence that supports the intervention, with recommendation for further studies: 36.3% [CI 95% 36.2-36.4] or no recommendation for further studies: 5.0% [CI 95% 4.8-5.1]. Evidence contrary to intervention, with recommendation for further studies 3.0% [CI 95% 2.8-3.1] or no recommendation for further studies 3.5% [CI 95% 3.3-3.6). Absence of evidence, with recommendation for further studies: 51.2% [CI 95% 55.1-55.3] or no recommendation for further studies 1% [CI 95% 0.9-1.1] . Of the total, 90.5% of the reviews suggest further studies regardless of the results obtained. The mean number of clinical trials in the reviews was 7.4 (ranging from zero to 137), and the mean number of meta-analyzes was 3.1 (ranging from zero to 26).Conclusion: Most systematic reviews of the Cochrane Ophthalmology Group show insufficiency or lack of evidence to recommend a particular intervention in clinical practice and recommends further controlled and randomized clinical trials.
Bissoli SFR. Mapping of the evidences of systematic reviews of Ophthalmology Cochrane database. [dissertation]. Botucatu, SP: Botucatu Medical School, State University of São Paulo 2018. Rationale and objectives: The Cochrane Collaboration aims to provide, through the publication of systematic reviews, up-to-date, objective information and with consistent evidence for clinical practice and for the establishment of health policies. However, there is often an inconsistency of evidence and inability to generate recommendations. The objective of this study was to analyze the systematic reviews of the Cochrane Collaboration Ophthalmology Group and to map its usefulness to clinical practice and to scientific research. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out with an analysis of all the systematic reviews published in the Ophthalmology Group of the Cochrane Collaboration until May 2018, confirming the type of recommendation for clinical practice and for scientific research, through analysis of the conclusions of its authors. In addition, we counted the number of clinical trials and meta-analyzes by systematic review and by subspecialty, per year. Results: 202 revisions were obtained in the period. Evidence that supports the intervention, with recommendation for further studies: 36.3% [CI 95% 36.2-36.4] or no recommendation for further studies: 5.0% [CI 95% 4.8-5.1]. Evidence contrary to intervention, with recommendation for further studies 3.0% [CI 95% 2.8-3.1] or no recommendation for further studies 3.5% [CI 95% 3.3-3.6). Absence of evidence, with recommendation for further studies: 51.2% [CI 95% 55.1-55.3] or no recommendation for further studies 1% [CI 95% 0.9-1.1] . Of the total, 90.5% of the reviews suggest further studies regardless of the results obtained. The mean number of clinical trials in the reviews was 7.4 (ranging from zero to 137), and the mean number of meta-analyzes was 3.1 (ranging from zero to 26).Conclusion: Most systematic reviews of the Cochrane Ophthalmology Group show insufficiency or lack of evidence to recommend a particular intervention in clinical practice and recommends further controlled and randomized clinical trials.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Oftalmologia, Revisão Sistemática, Meta-análise, Colaboração Cochrane, Pesquisa Científica, Ophthalmology, Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, Cochrane Collaboration, Scientific research