Revisões Exploratórias Sistemáticas como metodologia para a síntese do conhecimento científico
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Resumo
Introdução: Atualmente, os sistemas de saúde em todo o mundo apostam em tomar decisões clínicas baseadas em evidências científicas. Para isso, é necessário que os profissionais de saúde consultem os resultados da pesquisa científica. No entanto, dada a grande quantidade de literatura, os pesquisadores desenvolveram metodologias de revisão para compilar estudos científicos dentro de uma área específica. Embora existam mais de 10 tipos de metodologias para a revisão da literatura, a Revisão Explorada Sistemática (ESR) recebeu pouca atenção na literatura sobre métodos de pesquisa científica de língua espanhola.
Objetivo: Detalhar a metodologia da RSC, seus propósitos e as fases para o seu desenvolvimento.
Desenvolvimento: Este artigo detalha as generalidades da RSC com base na metodologia proposta por Arksey e O'Malley (2005). Ele também descreve as áreas ou áreas onde esse tipo de revisão pode ser usado, as fases para desenvolver a revisão e exemplos de RSC.
Conclusões: As RSCs têm a força para permitir que os profissionais de saúde conheçam uma questão específica que permite influenciar as políticas públicas. Como as Revisões Sistemáticas, a RSE usa uma metodologia clara e replicável, fornecendo dados confiáveis e científicos para profissionais de saúde.
Publication Facts
Reviewer profiles Indisp.
Author statements
- Editor & editorial board
- profiles
- Academic society
- Indisp.
- Publisher
- Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
To learn about these publication facts, click 
PF is maintained by the Public Knowledge Project
Article Details
Dimensions citation
MÉTRICAS
Referências
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
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Enfermería Universitaria por Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México se distribui sob uma Licença Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional
Os artigos aceitos e publicados são de acesso livre sob os termos da licença Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, que autoriza sua reprodução e difusão sem fins comerciais, enquanto se conceda o reconhecimento referente a seus autores. Permite-se aos autores o autoarquivo da versão publicada para que eles a coloquem em sua página web pessoal ou institucional, ou nos sites que considerem pertinentes para sua maior difusão. 