Revisiones Sistemáticas Exploratorias como metodología para la síntesis del conocimiento científico

Contenido principal del artículo

H. Fernández-Sánchez
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4992-7096
K. King
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8367-1210
C.B. Enríquez-Hernández
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7346-3714

Resumen

Introducción: En la actualidad los sistemas de salud alrededor del mundo apuestan por una toma decisiones clínicas basadas en la evidencia científica. Para ello, es necesario que los profesionales de la salud consulten los resultados de las investigaciones científicas. Sin embargo, dada la gran cantidad de literatura, los investigadores han desarrollado metodologías de revisión para compilar los estudios científicos dentro de un área específica. Aun cuando existen más de 10 tipos de metodologías para la revisión de la literatura, la Revisión Sistemática Exploratoria (RSE) ha recibido poca atención en la literatura sobre métodos de investigación científica de habla hispana.


Objetivo: Detallar la metodología de la RSE, sus propósitos y las fases para su desarrollo.


Desarrollo: Este trabajo detalla las generalidades de la RSE basándose en la metodología propuesta por Arksey & O’Malley. Así mismo, se describen las áreas o ámbitos donde este tipo de revisión se puede emplear, las fases para desarrollar la revisión y ejemplos de las RSE.


Conclusiones: Las RSE tienen la fortaleza de hacer saber a los profesionales de la salud sobre un tema en específico que permita incidir en las políticas públicas. Al igual que las Revisiones Sistemáticas, las RSE utilizan una metodología clara y replicable, aportando datos confiables y científicos para los profesionales de la salud.

Detalles del artículo

Dimensions citation

MÉTRICAS

 

Citas

1. Mazurek-Melnyk B, Fineout-Overholt E, Stillwell SB, Williamson KM. The seven steps of evidence-based practice: following this progressive, sequential approach will lead to improved health care and patient outcomes. Am J Nurs. 2010; 110(1): 51-3. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000366056.06605.d2

2. Wachtel RE, Dexter F. Difficulties and challenges associated with literature searches in operating room management, complete with recommendations. Anesth Analg. 2013; 117(6): 1460-79. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182a6d33b

3. Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M. Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions. BMJ Open. 2012; 2(5): e001220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220

4. Clarke J. What is a systematic review? Evid Based Nurs. 2011. 14(3): 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebn.2011.0049

5. Higgings JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://bit.ly/2S2zCru

6. Schick-Makaroff K, MacDonald M, Plummer M, Burgess J, Neander W. What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health. 2016; 3(1): 172-215. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172

7. Paré G, Trudel MC, Jaana M, Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Inform Manage-Amster. 2015; 52(2): 183-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008

8. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Baldini-Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. En: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. https://bit.ly/2txKdkO

9. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009; 26(2): 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

10. Arksey H, O´Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

11. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010; 5 (Article number 69): 9 screens. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

12. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467-73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

13. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(10): 1435-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938

14. Cochrane Library. About Covidence. Community.cochrane.org. United Kingdom: Cochrane comunnity; 2020. https://bit.ly/2OvQQLO

15. Salami B, Meharali S, Salami A. The health of temporary foreign workers in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2015; 106(8): 546-54. https://doi.org/10.17269/cjph.106.5182

16. O’Rourke HM, Sidani S, Chu CH, Fox M, McGilton KS, Collins J. Pilot of a tailored danceiIntervention to support function in people with cognitive impairment residing in long-term care: A brief report. Gero and Geriatric Med. 2017; 3: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333721417734672

17. Jang M, Johnson CM, D’Eramo-Melkus G, Vorderstrasse AA. Participation of racial and ethnic minorities in technology-based interventions to self-manage type 2 diabetes: A scoping review. J Transcult Nurs. 2018; 29(3):292-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659617723074

18. Fernández-Sánchez H, Enríquez- Hernández CB, Sidani S, Hernández-Osorio C, Castellanos-Contreras E, Salazar-Mendoza J. Dance intervention for Mexican family caregivers of children with developmental disability: A pilot study. J Transcult Nurs. 2019; 31(1): 38-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659619838027

19. O'Rourke HM, Collins L, Sidani S. Interventions to address social connectedness and loneliness for older adults: a scoping review. BMC geriatr. 2018; 18(1): 214. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0897-x

20. Reid JC, Unger J, McCaskell D, Childerhose L, Zorko DJ, Kho ME. Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies. J intensive care. 2018; 6(1):80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-018-0349-x

21. McArthur C, Gibbs JC, Patel R, Papaioannou A, Neves P, Killingbeck J, et al. A scoping review of physical rehabilitation in long-term care: Interventions, outcomes, tools. Ca J Aging. 2017; 36(4):435-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S071498081700040X

22. Bussiek P-BV, De Poli C, Bevan G. A scoping review protocol to map the evidence on interventions to prevent overweight and obesity in children. BMJ Open 2018; 8(2): e019311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019311

23. Gardner K, Kearns R, Woodland L, Silveira M, Hua M, Katz M, et al. A scoping review of the evidence on health promotion interventions for reducing waterpipe smoking: implications for practice. Front Public Health. 2018; 6: article 308. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00308

24. Verbeek J, Ruotsalainen J, Laitinen J, Korkiakangas E, Lusa S, Mänttäri S, et al. Interventions to enhance recovery in healthy workers; a scoping review. Occup Med. 2019; 69(1):54-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqy141

25. Hammond DA, Gurnani PK, Flannery AH, Smetana KS, Westrick JC, Lat I, et al. Scoping review of interventions associated with cost avoidance able to be performed in the intensive care unit and emergency department. Pharmacotherapy. 2019; 39(3):215-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2224

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a