PDF herunterladen
Arquivos Brasileiros de Neurocirurgia: Brazilian Neurosurgery 2016; 35(03): 179-184
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1583528
Original Article | Artigo Original
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Guidelines for Integration of Systematic Reviews using Primary Studies

Métodos para integração de revisões sistemáticas utilizando revisões publicadas e estudos primários
Ricardo Vieira Botelho
1   Spine Surgery Group, Neurosurgery Service, Hospital do Servidor Público Estadual (HSPE) de São Paulo e do Conjunto Hospitalar do Mandaqui, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
2   Instituto de Assistência Médica ao Servidor Público Estadual (IAMSPE) de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Matheus Fernandes Oliveira
1   Spine Surgery Group, Neurosurgery Service, Hospital do Servidor Público Estadual (HSPE) de São Paulo e do Conjunto Hospitalar do Mandaqui, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

27. Januar 2016

28. März 2016

Publikationsdatum:
17. Mai 2016 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Due to the growing number of systematic reviews published and the need to update the existing revisions, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) – Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) published in 2008 a preliminary guide to integrate primary data education to data from systematic reviews already published. This study is a translation effort of the American agency's guidelines to provide subsidies for revisions in our midst.

Methods A study group with experts in systematic review was gathered to identify any methodological requirements that need clarification and guidance to revision developers that used existing reviews. In addition, they identified and consulted experienced researchers to provide guidance on conducting systematic reviews: Key informants (KI).

Results No evidence was found in the literature for the driving advice based on the integration of existing systematic reviews and primary assays. Recommendations were based on expert opinion.

Conclusion The literature lacks guidelines for integration of systematic reviews and primary studies.

Resumo

Objetivos Devido ao crescimento do número de revisões sistemáticas publicadas e a necessidade de atualização das revisões existentes, a Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) – Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) – publicou em 2008 um guia preliminar para integrar os dados dos estudos primários aos dados das revisões sistemáticas já publicadas, no desenvolvimento de novas revisões sistemáticas. Este estudo é um esforço de tradução das orientações da agência americana, com o intuito de fornecer subsídios para as revisões em nosso meio.

Métodos Um grupo de estudos com especialistas em revisão sistemática foi reunido para identificar as eventuais necessidades metodológicas que precisariam de esclarecimento e orientação para elaboradores de revisões que utilizassem revisões existentes. Adicionalmente, foram identificados e consultados pesquisadores experientes que fornecessem orientações sobre a realização de revisões sistemáticas: informantes-chave (IC).

Resultados Não foram encontradas evidências na literatura para basear recomendações na condução da integração de ensaios primários às revisões sistemáticas existentes. As recomendações foram baseadas em opiniões de especialistas.

Conclusão A literatura carece de orientações para integração de estudos primários às revisões sistemáticas.

Keywords

systematic reviews - primary studies - clinical research

Palavras-chave

revisão sistemática - pesquisa clínica - estudos primários

Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson KA. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148 (10) 776-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 White CM, Ip S, McPheeters M , et al. Using Existing Systematic Reviews to Replace De Novo Processes in Conducting Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. In: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; September 2009. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Robinson KA, Whitlock EP, Oneil ME , et al. Integration of Existing Systematic Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 14–EHC016-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 23, 2014. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Robinson KA, Whitlock EP, Oneil ME , et al. Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs. Syst Rev 2014; 3: 60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA , et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7 (1) 10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Effective Health Care Scientific Resource Center. Methods Article Alert. Portland: Scientific Resource Center. www.epcsrc.org/methods_library/index.cfm . Accessed May 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Filters to identify systematic reviews. InterTASC Information Specialists' SubGroup. https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issgsearch-filters-resource/filters-to-identifysystematic-reviews . Accessed October 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009
    PubMed
  • 9 Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG ; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151 (4) 264-269 , W64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Relevo R, Paynter R. Peer review of search strategies. Methods Research Reports. AHRQ Publication No.: 12–EHC068-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ahmadzai N, Newberry SJ, Maglione MA , et al. A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2013; 2 (1) 104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG). ISSG Search Filters Resource. Avalable at: https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/filters-to-identify-systematic-reviews
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chung M, Newberry SJ, Ansari MT , et al. Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2012; 65 (6) 660-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shekelle PG, Newberry SJ, Wu H , et al. Identifying Signals for Updating Systematic Reviews.: A Comparison of Two Methods. Methods Research Report. AHRQ Publication No. 11–EHC042-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2011. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cornell JE, Mulrow CD, Localio R , et al. Random-effects meta-analysis of inconsistent effects: a time for change. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160 (4) 267-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Berkman ND, Lohr K, Ansari MT , et al. Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update. AHRQ Publication No. 13(14)-EHC130-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; November 2013. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials 2007; 28 (2) 105-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Robinson KA, Chou R, Berkman ND , et al. Integrating Bodies of Evidence: Existing Systematic Reviews and Primary Studies. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews (Prepared by the Scientific Resource Center under Contract No. 290–2012–00004-C). AHRQ Publication No. 15–EHC007-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. February 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar