Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Silva,Valter
Data de Publicação: 2012
Outros Autores: Grande,Antonio José, Martimbianco,Ana Luiza Cabrera, Riera,Rachel, Carvalho,Alan Pedrosa Viegas
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: São Paulo medical journal (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802012000600007
Resumo: CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Healthcare decision-making is complex and should involve healthcare professionals, patients and the best level of evidence. The speed of information production creates barriers against keeping up to date. In this light, methodologists have proposed a new type of study: overviews of systematic reviews (OoRs). The aim here was to introduce and demonstrate the role of OoRs in information synthesis for healthcare professionals, managers, researchers and patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Time-series study conducted at the Brazilian Cochrane Center, jointly with the Postgraduate Program on Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, Discipline of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo. METHODS: To show the growth in the numbers of published papers that provide high-level evidence and thus demonstrate the importance of OoRs for synthesis and integration of information, three filters for study designs were applied to two databases. An equation for predicting the expected number of published papers was developed and applied. RESULTS: Over the present decade, the number of randomized controlled trials in Medline might reach 2,863,203 and the number of systematic reviews might reach 174,262. Nine OoRs and 15 OoRs protocols have been published in the Cochrane Library. CONCLUSIONS: With the exponential growth of published papers, as shown in this study, a new type of study directed especially towards healthcare decision-makers was proposed, named "overview of systematic reviews". This could reduce the uncertainties in decision-making and generate a new hierarchy in the pyramid of evidence.
id APM-1_9d32a6a3659c0cca08e2dfefe3347b73
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1516-31802012000600007
network_acronym_str APM-1
network_name_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?Review [publication type]Study characteristics [publication type]Decision makingEvidence-based practiceEvidence-based medicineCONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Healthcare decision-making is complex and should involve healthcare professionals, patients and the best level of evidence. The speed of information production creates barriers against keeping up to date. In this light, methodologists have proposed a new type of study: overviews of systematic reviews (OoRs). The aim here was to introduce and demonstrate the role of OoRs in information synthesis for healthcare professionals, managers, researchers and patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Time-series study conducted at the Brazilian Cochrane Center, jointly with the Postgraduate Program on Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, Discipline of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo. METHODS: To show the growth in the numbers of published papers that provide high-level evidence and thus demonstrate the importance of OoRs for synthesis and integration of information, three filters for study designs were applied to two databases. An equation for predicting the expected number of published papers was developed and applied. RESULTS: Over the present decade, the number of randomized controlled trials in Medline might reach 2,863,203 and the number of systematic reviews might reach 174,262. Nine OoRs and 15 OoRs protocols have been published in the Cochrane Library. CONCLUSIONS: With the exponential growth of published papers, as shown in this study, a new type of study directed especially towards healthcare decision-makers was proposed, named "overview of systematic reviews". This could reduce the uncertainties in decision-making and generate a new hierarchy in the pyramid of evidence.Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM2012-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802012000600007Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.130 n.6 2012reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)instname:Associação Paulista de Medicinainstacron:APM10.1590/S1516-31802012000600007info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSilva,ValterGrande,Antonio JoséMartimbianco,Ana Luiza CabreraRiera,RachelCarvalho,Alan Pedrosa Viegaseng2013-01-18T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1516-31802012000600007Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/spmjhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevistas@apm.org.br1806-94601516-3180opendoar:2013-01-18T00:00São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicinafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?
title Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?
spellingShingle Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?
Silva,Valter
Review [publication type]
Study characteristics [publication type]
Decision making
Evidence-based practice
Evidence-based medicine
title_short Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?
title_full Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?
title_fullStr Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?
title_full_unstemmed Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?
title_sort Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?
author Silva,Valter
author_facet Silva,Valter
Grande,Antonio José
Martimbianco,Ana Luiza Cabrera
Riera,Rachel
Carvalho,Alan Pedrosa Viegas
author_role author
author2 Grande,Antonio José
Martimbianco,Ana Luiza Cabrera
Riera,Rachel
Carvalho,Alan Pedrosa Viegas
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Silva,Valter
Grande,Antonio José
Martimbianco,Ana Luiza Cabrera
Riera,Rachel
Carvalho,Alan Pedrosa Viegas
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Review [publication type]
Study characteristics [publication type]
Decision making
Evidence-based practice
Evidence-based medicine
topic Review [publication type]
Study characteristics [publication type]
Decision making
Evidence-based practice
Evidence-based medicine
description CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Healthcare decision-making is complex and should involve healthcare professionals, patients and the best level of evidence. The speed of information production creates barriers against keeping up to date. In this light, methodologists have proposed a new type of study: overviews of systematic reviews (OoRs). The aim here was to introduce and demonstrate the role of OoRs in information synthesis for healthcare professionals, managers, researchers and patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Time-series study conducted at the Brazilian Cochrane Center, jointly with the Postgraduate Program on Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, Discipline of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo. METHODS: To show the growth in the numbers of published papers that provide high-level evidence and thus demonstrate the importance of OoRs for synthesis and integration of information, three filters for study designs were applied to two databases. An equation for predicting the expected number of published papers was developed and applied. RESULTS: Over the present decade, the number of randomized controlled trials in Medline might reach 2,863,203 and the number of systematic reviews might reach 174,262. Nine OoRs and 15 OoRs protocols have been published in the Cochrane Library. CONCLUSIONS: With the exponential growth of published papers, as shown in this study, a new type of study directed especially towards healthcare decision-makers was proposed, named "overview of systematic reviews". This could reduce the uncertainties in decision-making and generate a new hierarchy in the pyramid of evidence.
publishDate 2012
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2012-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802012000600007
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802012000600007
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1516-31802012000600007
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.130 n.6 2012
reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)
instname:Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron:APM
instname_str Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron_str APM
institution APM
reponame_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
collection São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicina
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistas@apm.org.br
_version_ 1754209263456092160