¿Cuántos Tipos de Revisiones de la Literatura Existen? Enumeración, Descripción y Clasificación. Revisión Cualitativa / How Many Types of Literature Reviews are There? Listings, Description and Classification

La expansión y consolidación de la práctica clínica basada en la evidencia ha llevado entre otras, a la necesidad de realizar una variedad cada vez mayor de tipos de revisión de la literatura científica; lo que permite avanzar en el conocimiento y comprender la amplitud de la investigación sobre un tema de interés, teniendo en cuenta que una de las propiedades del conocimiento es su carácter acumulativo. Sin embargo, la diversidad de la terminología utilizada genera confusión de términos y conceptos. El objetivo de este manuscrito fue proporcionar un listado de los tipos de revisiones de la literatura más frecuentemente utilizados con sus características y algunos ejemplos de ellas. Revisión cualitativa. Se examinaron de forma dirigida las bases de datos PubMed, WoS y Scopus, en búsqueda de términos asociados a tipos de revisiones y síntesis de la literatura científica. Se encontraron 21 tipos de revisión; y 29 variantes y sinonimias asociadas; las que ilustran los procesos de cada una de ellas. Se da una descripción general de las características de cada cual, junto con las fortalezas y debilidades percibidas. No obstante, se verificó que sólo algunos tipos de revisión poseen metodologías propias y explícitas. Este enfoque, proporciona un punto de referencia para quienes realizan o interpretan revisiones en el ámbito sanitario, y sugiere dos tipos de propuestas de clasificación.

SUMMARY: The expansion and consolidation of evidence-based clinical practice has led, among other things, to the need to carry out an increasing variety of types of literature reviews, which allows advancing in knowledge and understanding the breadth of research on a topic of interest. However, the diversity of the terminology used generates confusion of terms and concepts. The aim of this manuscript was to provide a list of the most frequently used review types with their characteristics and some examples. Qualitative review. PubMed, WoS and Scopus databases were examined in a directed way, searching for terms associated with types of reviews and syntheses of the scientific literature. Twenty-one types of review, and 29 variants and associated synonymies were found; those that illustrate the processes of each of them. An overview of the characteristics of each is given, along with perceived strengths and weaknesses. However, it was verified that only some types of review have their own explicit methodologies. This approach, provides a point of reference for those who perform or interpret reviews in the health field and suggests two classification proposals.

Abordando el cuerpo de evidencia: conceptos fundamentales de los overviews / Approaching the body of evidence: Key concepts of Overviews

El aumento de la producción de investigación primaria y de las revisiones de la literatura durante las últimas décadas ha hecho necesario el desarrollo de un nuevo diseño metodológico para sintetizar la evidencia: los overviews. Un overview es un diseño de síntesis de evidencia que toma como unidad de análisis a las revisiones sistemáticas, con el objetivo de extraer y analizar los resultados para una pregunta de interés nueva o más amplia, ayudando así a mejorar los procesos de toma de decisiones informadas. El objetivo de este artículo es introducir al lector a este tipo de resúmenes de evidencia, destacando las diferencias con los otros tipos de síntesis de evidencia, los aspectos metodológicos particulares de los overviews, y los desafíos pendientes. Este artículo es el duodécimo de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica.

The increasing production of primary research and literature reviews in the last decades has made it necessary to develop a new methodological design to synthesize the evidence: the overviews. An overview is a type of evidence synthesis that uses systematic reviews as the unit of analysis, with the aim of extracting and analyzing the results for a new or broader research question, helping the shared decision-making processes. The aim of this article is to introduce the reader to this type of evidence summaries, highlighting the differences between overviews and other types of synthesis, the unique methodological aspects of overviews, and future challenges. This is the twelfth article from a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology.

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.

Certainty of evidence, why? / Certeza das evidências, por quê?

ABSTRACT Optimal clinical decision-making requires understanding of evidence regarding benefits, harms, and burdens of alternative management options. Rigorously conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer accurate summaries of the evidence. However, such summaries may review only low-certainty evidence, in the process highlighting that no single decision is likely to be best for all patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach offers a systematic and transparent method for rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews. In this paper, we will address the importance of assessing the certainty associated with bodies of evidence; explain how the GRADE system rates the certainty of evidence from systematic reviews; and present the GRADE evidence to decision framework for moving from evidence to strong or weak recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

RESUMO Para tomar a melhor decisão clínica, é preciso compreender as evidências a respeito dos benefícios, malefícios e ônus das alternativas de manejo. Revisões sistemáticas e meta-análises que sejam realizadas com rigor oferecem resumos precisos das evidências. No entanto, é possível que esses resumos avaliem apenas as evidências cujo grau de certeza é baixo e, ao fazê-lo, ressaltem que provavelmente não existe uma decisão única que será a melhor para todos os pacientes. O Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) é um método sistemático e transparente para avaliar o grau de certeza das evidências em revisões sistemáticas. Neste artigo, abordaremos a importância de avaliar o grau de certeza das evidências; explicaremos como o sistema GRADE classifica o grau de certeza das evidências provenientes de revisões sistemáticas e apresentaremos o evidence to decision framework (quadro para a avaliação de evidências) do GRADE para decidir se as evidências se traduzem em recomendações fortes ou fracas nas diretrizes de prática clínica.

Síntesis de evidencia para intervenciones en COVID-19: informes de actualización de la Comisión Nacional de Evaluación de Tecnologías de Salud de Argentina / Evidence synthesis for COVID-19 interventions: update reports from Argentina's National Commission for Health Technology Assessment / Síntese de evidências para intervenções em COVID-19: relatórios de atualização da Comissão Nacional de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde da Argentina

RESUMEN Este informe tiene por objetivo exponer el trabajo realizado sobre el diseño, la publicación y el impacto de las actualizaciones para intervenciones en COVID-19 basadas en la evidencia, para brindar síntesis de evidencia actualizadas a partir de revisiones sistemáticas vivas sobre intervenciones terapéuticas para dar soporte en la toma de decisiones. Para ello, se generó un grupo específico de trabajo en el ámbito de la Comisión Nacional de Evaluación de Tecnologías de Salud (CONETEC) en el Ministerio de Salud de Argentina en colaboración con la Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS). Se diseñó una metodología para elaborar y publicar documentos de evaluación orientados a dar apoyo en la toma de decisiones. Estos informes de actualización se respaldaron en la exploración de tres dominios: los efectos en la salud, la factibilidad de la implementación y las recomendaciones basadas en evidencia. Las conclusiones se adaptaron en un esquema semaforizado según el balance entre los beneficios y los aspectos negativos para los distintos escenarios clínicos, a fin de mejorar su interpretación y aplicación. Durante el año 2021 se publicaron 16 informes de síntesis de evidencia (13 originales y 3 actualizaciones completas) que recibieron un destacado número consultas desde la página web de CONETEC y la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA). Así se hizo visible la necesidad de disponer de resúmenes de evidencia robustos, actualizados y confiables con adaptación al contexto de aplicación en el sistema sanitario del país. El desafío se presenta, además, en la actualización constante de la información, la diseminación apropiada y el sostenimiento en la rigurosidad en el desarrollo de los informes.

ABSTRACT This report presents the work done on the design, publication, and impact of updates on evidence-based COVID-19 interventions, in order to support decision-making with updated evidence syntheses based on living systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. To this end, a specific working group was created within the National Commission for Health Technology Assessment (CONETEC) of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, in collaboration with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). A methodology was designed to develop and publish assessment documents aimed at supporting decision-making. These update reports were based on the exploration of three areas: health effects, feasibility of implementation, and evidence-based recommendations. A color-coded system was used to present the conclusions according to the balance between their positive and negative effects in different clinical scenarios, in order to improve their interpretation and implementation. In 2021, 16 evidence synthesis reports were published (13 original reports and three full updates). These were downloaded many times from the CONETEC website and the Regional Database of Health Technology Assessment Reports of the Americas (BRISA), highlighting the need for robust, up-to-date, reliable evidence summaries adapted for implementation in the country's health system. Other challenges include constant updating of information, appropriate dissemination, and sustained rigorous preparation of the reports.

RESUMO Este relatório tem como objetivo apresentar o trabalho realizado sobre o delineamento, publicação e impacto das atualizações para intervenções em COVID-19 baseadas em evidências, que visam fornecer sínteses de evidências atualizadas provenientes de revisões sistemáticas vivas sobre intervenções terapêuticas para apoiar a tomada de decisões. Para isso, foi criado um grupo de trabalho específico no âmbito da Comissão Nacional de Avaliação de Tecnologias de Saúde (CONETEC, na sigla em espanhol), do Ministério da Saúde da Argentina, em parceria com a Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (OPAS). Foi desenhada uma metodologia para a elaboração e publicação de documentos de avaliação destinados a apoiar a tomada de decisões. Esses relatórios de atualização se basearam na exploração de três domínios: efeitos na saúde, viabilidade da implementação e recomendações baseadas em evidências. As conclusões foram adaptadas a uma escala semafórica de acordo com o equilíbrio entre os benefícios e os aspectos negativos para os diferentes cenários clínicos, de forma a melhorar a sua interpretação e aplicação. Durante o ano de 2021, foram publicados 16 relatórios de síntese de evidências (13 originais e 3 atualizações completas), que receberam um número significativo de consultas no site da CONETEC e da Base Regional de Informes de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde das Américas (BRISA). Assim, tornou-se visível a necessidade de contar com resumos de evidências robustos, atualizados e confiáveis adaptados ao contexto de aplicação no sistema de saúde do país. A atualização constante das informações, sua divulgação adequada e a manutenção do rigor na elaboração dos relatórios também apresentam desafios.

Association between delivery mode and exclusive breastfeeding during hospitalization and within six months after birth: a meta-analysis / 中华围产医学杂志

Objective:To systematically review the association between delivery mode and exclusive breastfeeding rate during hospitalization and within the first six months of life.Methods:Observational studies on the association between delivery mode and feeding pattern were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, China Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI, Wanfang Database, and VIP Database from inception to October 2022. Two independent reviewers screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using Critical Appraisal Tools published by Joanna Briggs Institute or Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale (NOS). This meta-analysis was performed using R 4.1.0 software. Fixed-effect or random-effect models were used to pool data. Egger test and funnel plot were used to assess publication bias.Results:A total of 34 studies involving 597 203 subjects were included, including 22 cross-sectional studies and 12 cohort studies. All of the 22 cross-sectional studies were B-level quality, and eleven out of the 12 included cohort studies scored 7 points or above on the NOS scale with high quality. The results of meta-analysis showed that the likelihood of exclusive breastfeeding during hospitalization of women who had cesarean section was lower than those who delivered vaginally ( OR=0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.50, P<0.001); and so was the likelihood of exclusive breastfeeding at six months postpartum ( OR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.47-0.79, P<0.001). Conclusion:Current evidence suggests that cesarean section is a disadvantage to exclusive breastfeeding during hospitalization and within six months after delivery.

An exploratory study of citations in systematic reviews of randomized trials published in Latin American journals

Introduction The prevalence of inclusion of randomized controlled trials published in Latin American journals has not been evaluated yet. This study explores the extent to which randomized trials published in Latin American medical journals are cited and used in systematic reviews. Methods We did a descriptive observational study on randomized trials published in MEDLINE-indexed Latin American journals from 2010 to 2015. The primary outcome was the inclusion of these trials in systematic reviews. The secondary outcome was the total number of citations each trial received, as reported by Google Scholar. Results Twenty-nine journals were selected. After searching these journals, we found 135 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria accounting for 2% of all research articles published in these journals. Of these, 55 (41%) were included in 202 systematic reviews. Of the nine most-cited randomized trials by systematic reviews and meta-analyses, only two were published in Spanish. Nine received zero citations by any article type. Most had small sample sizes. Conclusions The overall impact of randomized controlled trials published in Latin American journals is low. Little funding, language bias and small sample sizes may explain the low inclusion in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Introducción La prevalencia de la inclusión de ensayos controlados aleatorizados publicados en revistas latinoamericanas aún no ha sido evaluada. Este estudio tiene como objetivo explorar el grado en que los ensayos aleatorizados publicados en revistas médicas latinoamericanas son citados y utilizados en revisiones sistemáticas. Métodos Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo sobre los ensayos aleatorizados publicados en revistas latinoamericanas indexadas en MEDLINE entre 2010 y 2015. El resultado primario fue la inclusión de estos ensayos en revisiones sistemáticas. El resultado secundario fue el número total de citas que recibió cada ensayo según lo informado por Google Scholar. Resultados Se seleccionaron 29 revistas. Después de buscar en estas revistas, se encontraron 135 ensayos que cumplían los criterios de inclusión, lo que representa el 2% de todos los artículos de investigación publicados en estas revistas. De estos, 55 (41%) fueron incluidos por 202 revisiones sistemáticas. De los nueve ensayos aleatorios más citados por las revisiones sistemáticas y los metaanálisis, sólo dos fueron publicados en español. Nueve recibieron cero citas por cualquier tipo de artículo. La mayoría tenían tamaños muestrales pequeños. Conclusiones El impacto de los ensayos controlados aleatorios publicados en revistas latinoamericanas es bajo. La escasa financiación, el sesgo lingüístico y el pequeño tamaño muestral pueden explicar la escasa inclusión en las revisiones sistemáticas y los metaanálisis.

Revisiones sistemáticas: conceptos clave para profesionales de la salud / Systematic reviews: Key concepts for health professionals

El crecimiento exponencial de evidencia disponible actualmente ha hecho necesario recopilar, filtrar, valorar críticamente y sintetizar la información biomédica para mantenerse actualizado. En este sentido, las revisiones sistemáticas constituyen una herramienta útil y pueden ser fuentes confiables para asistir a la toma de decisiones basadas en evidencia. Definimos como revisiones sistemáticas a aquellas investigaciones secundarias o síntesis de evidencia focalizadas en una pregunta específica que, a partir de una metodología estructurada, permiten identificar, seleccionar, valorar críticamente y resumir los hallazgos de estudios relevantes. Las revisiones sistemáticas presentan varias ventajas potenciales, tales como la minimización de sesgos o la obtención de resultados de mayor precisión. La confiabilidad de la evidencia presentada en las revisiones sistemáticas está determinada, entre otros factores, por su calidad metodológica, pero también por la calidad de los estudios incluidos. Para realizar una revisión sistemática, se debe seguir una serie de pasos que incluyen la formulación de una pregunta de investigación a partir del formato PICO; una búsqueda bibliográfica exhaustiva; la selección de los estudios relevantes; la valoración crítica de los datos obtenidos a partir de los estudios incluidos; la síntesis de resultados, a menudo mediante métodos estadísticos (metanálisis); y finalmente una estimación de la certeza de evidencia para cada desenlace. En esta nota metodológica definiremos los conceptos básicos sobre revisiones sistemáticas, sus métodos y sus limitaciones.

The exponential growth of currently available evidence has made it necessary to collect, filter, critically appraise, and synthesize biomedical information to keep up to date. In this sense, systematic reviews are a helpful tool and can be reliable sources to assist in evidence-based decision-making. Systematic reviews are defined as secondary research or syntheses of evidence focused on a specific question that -- based on a structured methodology -- make it possible to identify, select, critically appraise, and summarize findings from relevant studies. Systematic reviews have several potential advantages, such as minimizing biases or obtaining more accurate results. The reliability of the evidence presented in systematic reviews is determined, amongst other factors, by the quality of their methodology and the included studies. To conduct a systematic review, a series of steps must be followed: the formulation of a research question using the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes (PICO) format; an exhaustive literature search; the selection of relevant studies; the critical appraisal of the data obtained from the included studies; the synthesis of results, often using statistical methods (meta-analysis); and finally, estimating the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. In this methodological note, we will define the basic concepts of systematic reviews, their methods, and their limitations.

Distribución espacial de los Genotipos de Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato por hospedero en el continente americano. Revisión sistemática / Spatial distribution of Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato genotypes in the american continent

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the distribution cystic is required for its territorial control. Aim: To describe the spatial distribution of Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato genotypes by host in the American continent. MATERRIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of studies from the American continent, related to genotypes of the E. granulosus s.l complex were included, including any host species, without restriction of language or year of publication. Sensitive searches were performed based on sensitive searches from PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS and WoS; SciELO and BIREME-BVS and Trip Database. MeSH and free terms were used, including articles up to December 2020. Cartography was carried out with the Arc Map 10® program, using a world geodetic system. Result variables sought were genotype, host, geographic location, year of publication, number of samples, genes used for genotyping. RESULTS: From 1123 retrieved studies retrieved, 53 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies analyzed represent 3,397 samples from humans and animals. Thirty six percent of articles were published in the five-year period 2016-2020. Reports were mainly from Argentina (27.9%), Brazil (20.6%) and Chile (13.2%). The most reported genotypes globally were G1-G3 (47.3%), G7 (15.3%), G5 (14.6%) and G6 (13.3%). A predominance of G1-G3 and G6 genotypes was verified in South America, G8 and G10 in North America, and "epidemiological silence" in Central America and the Caribbean. Conclusions: Spatial analysis allows defining the relationship of territories and cases with their own characteristics, which can help to plan control interventions.

Incontinence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a reverse systematic review

ABSTRACT Purpose: To report the prevalence of the definitions used to identify post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and to compare the rates of PPI over time under different criteria. Materials and Methods: In the period from January 1, 2000, until December 31, 2017, we used a recently described methodology to perform evidence acquisition called reverse systematic review (RSR). The continence definition and rates were evaluated and compared at 1, 3, 6, 12, and >18 months post-operative. Moreover, the RSR showed the "natural history" of PPI after LRP. Results: We identified 353 review articles in the systematized search, 137 studies about PPI were selected for data collection, and finally were included 203 reports (nr) with 51.436 patients. The most used criterion of continence was No pad (nr=121; 59.6%), the second one was Safety pad (nr=57; 28.1%). A statistically significant difference between continence criteria was identified only at >18 months (p=0.044). From 2013 until the end of our analysis, the Safety pad and Others became the most reported. Conclusion: RSR revealed the "natural history" of PPI after the LRP technique, and showed that through time the Safety pad concept was mainly used. However, paradoxically, we demonstrated that the two most utilized criteria, Safety pad and No pad, had similar PPI outcomes. Further effort should be made to standardize the PPI denomination to evaluate, compare and discuss the urinary post-operatory function.

Alternativas para o tratamento de cicatrizes queloidianas: uma revisão integrativa / Alternatives for keloid scars treatment: an integrative review

As cicatrizes queloidianas afetam diversas populações, comprometendo a qualidade de vida dos pacientes. Vários tratamentos são apresentados na literatura. O presente estudo visou a realização de uma revisão integrativa dos artigos de revisões sistemáticas e/ou metanálises que abordam o seu tratamento nas bases de dados PubMed, LILACS, MEDLINE e Cochrane no período de 2015 a 2021. Após a identificação, e seguindo os critérios de seleção e elegibilidade, foram incluídos 24 artigos para revisão qualitativa. Observamos que as diferentes modalidades de tratamento empregadas para os queloides são afetadas pela dificuldade de avaliar recorrência, ainda mantendo muitas taxas de insucesso e necessidade de novos estudos.

Keloid scars affect different populations, compromising patients' quality of life. The literature presents several treatments. The study aimed to conduct an integrative review of systematic review articles and/or meta-analyses addressing keloid treatment in the PubMed, LILACS, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases from 2015 to 2021. After identification and following the selection and eligibility criteria, 24 articles were included for qualitative review. We observed that the difficulty in evaluating recurrence affected different keloids treatment modalities, still presenting many failure rates and the need for further studies.

How are meta-analyses being conducted and reported in dentistry? A meta-research study

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate how meta-analyses are conducted and reported in dentistry. Methods: We conducted a search to identify dentistry-related Systematic Reviews (SRs) indexed in PubMed in 2017 (from January 01 until December 31) and published in the English language. We included only SRs reporting at least one meta-analysis. The study selection followed the 4-phase flow set forth in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA), and it was independently conducted by two researchers. Data extraction was performed by one of three reviewers, and data related to conducting and reporting of the meta-analysis were collected. Descriptive data analysis was performed summarizing frequencies for categorical items or median and interquartile range for continuous data. Results: We included 214 SRs with meta-analyses. Most of the studies reported in the title that a meta-analysis was conducted. We identified three critical flaws in the included studies: Ninety (90) meta-analyses (43.1%) did not specify the primary outcome; most of the meta-analyses reported that a measure of statistical heterogeneity was used to justify the use of a fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analysis model (n=114, 58.5%); and a great part did not assess publication bias (n=106, 49.5%). Conclusion: We identified deficiencies in the reporting and conduct of meta-analysis in dentistry, suggesting that there is room for improvement. Educational approaches are necessary to improve the quality of such analyses and to avoid biased and imprecise results

Diagnostic properties of sensitivity changes in patients with maxillofacial fractures: a systematic review

Aim: Verify the accuracy of objective assessments compared to subjective tests in detecting changes in somatosensory perception in individuals affected by maxillofacial trauma. Methods: The review (PROSPERO n ° CRD42019125546) used the databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, LILACS and other bibliographic resources. Prospective and retrospective studies that used objective and subjective methods of assessing facial sensitivity in maxillofacial fractures were included. There was no restriction on language or publication date. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2. Data extraction and analysis were performed using a form developed for the study. Results: 21 studies were included. The clinical objective examination mainly includes assessments of: tactile sensitivity (95.24%) and nociceptive sensitivity (57.14%). The subjective assessment was based on the patient's report, spontaneously (61.90%), guided by structured questionnaires (33.33%) and/or using scales (9.52%) to measure the degree of impairment. In risk of bias assessment, were observed no adequate interpretation and classification of changes in subjective sensitivity, subject to inappropriate analysis of the data. In addition, the studies bring several instruments without standardization for assessing sensory modalities. Conclusion: The objective assessment is a complement to the subjective assessment, using the touch assessment as the main parameter in the profile of the facial peripheral integrity, associated or not with nociceptive assessment. Lack of consensus on the indication of specific instruments for testing is a limiting factor. Thus, based on the studies, is proposed a minimum battery of sensitivity assessment to obtain an overview of the patient's peripheral nervous situation

Safety and efficacy of "on-demand" tramadol in patients with premature ejaculation: an updated meta-analysis

ABSTRACT Introduction: Tramadol has been used for the treatment of premature ejaculation, however, the studies published for the same are not well designed. The primary objective of this study was to explore the literature pertaining to the use of tramadol in patients with PE to determine its safety and efficacy in this population. Materials ande methods: Systematic literature search of various electronic databases was conducted to include all the randomized studies and quasi-randomized studies. Standard PRISMA (Preferred reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines were pursued for this review and study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019123381). Results: Out of 9 studies included in this review, 5 were randomized controlled trials, and rests of the 4 studies were quasi-randomized studies. Tramadol resulted in significantly higher improvement of IELT with the mean difference (MD) of 139.6 seconds and confidence interval (CI) 106.5-172.6 seconds with a p-value of p <0.00001. All dosages except 25mg fared well as compared to placebo. Tramadol fared better than placebo at 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after initiation of therapy as compared to the placebo. Tramadol group had reported a significantly higher number of adverse events with treatment as compared to placebo but none of them were serious. Conclusion: Tramadol appears to be an effective drug for the management of PE with a low propensity for serious adverse events. However, evidence obtained from this study is of low to moderate quality. Furthermore, effective dose and duration of therapy remain elusive.

Introducción a los metanálisis en red para la síntesis de evidencia / Introduction to network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis

Este artículo forma parte de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar conceptos básicos respecto de las revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones múltiples con metanálisis en red. Para las preguntas clínicas en las que hay muchas alternativas terapéuticas que compiten (o se comparan) entre sí. La pregunta central es cómo clasificar u ordenar jerárquicamente su efecto (beneficio y/o daño) para escoger la mejor opción. Los metanálisis en red buscan responder a preguntas relacionadas con la efectividad o seguridad de múltiples tratamientos comparados entre sí, mediante el análisis simultáneo de resultados surgidos tanto de comparaciones directas como de comparaciones indirectas. La geometría de la red (network geometry) es la representación gráfica general de los metanálisis en red y permite comprender e incluso evaluar la fuerza de las comparaciones. Para que un metanálisis de comparaciones múltiples sea válido debe cumplir una serie de supuestos, destacándose el supuesto de transitividad que permite asumir que no hay diferencias sistemáticas entre las comparaciones disponibles, a excepción de las intervenciones comparadas. Así, es posible conocer la efectividad terapéutica relativa entre cualquier par de intervenciones del metanálisis en red y el orden de las intervenciones en términos de su categorización. Se ha propuesto utilizar el modelo Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) modificado en cuanto a las particularidades de los metanálisis en red para valorar la certeza de la evidencia, tanto para cada comparación como para la jerarquización de intervenciones.

This article belongs to a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. The goal is to present basics concepts concerning the systematics reviews of multiple treatments comparisons with network meta-analysis. For clinical ques-tions with several therapeutic alternatives to be compared, the central question is how to classify or rank their effectiveness (benefit and harm) to choose the best option. The network meta-analysis aims to answer questions related to the effectiveness and safety of comparing multiple treatments by the simultaneous analysis of results raised from direct and indirect comparisons. The network geometry is the general graphical representation of the network meta-analysis and allows to understand and assess the strength of comparisons. The network meta-analysis should check several assumptions to be valid, especially the transitivity assumption, which allows assuming that there are no systematic differences among the included comparisons, except their compared interventions. Thus, it is possible to know the relative therapeutic effectiveness of each pair of interventions included in the network meta-analysis and their ranking in terms of categorization. It has been proposed to use a modified Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach considering the distinctive features of network meta-analysis to assess the certainty of the evidence for each comparison and the ranking of interventions.

Role of salvage lymph node dissection in patients previously treated for prostate cancer: systematic review

ABSTRACT Prostate cancer is the most common invasive cancer in men. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a definitive treatment option, but biochemical recurrence can reach 40%. Salvage lymphadenectomy is a relatively recent approach to oligometasis and has been rapidly diffused primarily due to improvement in imaging diagnosis and results showing possibly promising therapy. A systematic literature review was performed in March 2020, according to the PRISMA statement. We excluded studies with patients with suspicion or confirmation of visceral and / or bone metastases. A total of 27 articles were included in the study. All studies evaluated were single arm, and there were no randomized studies in the literature. A total of 1,714 patients received salvage lymphadenectomy after previous treatment for localized prostate cancer. RP was the most used initial therapeutic approach, and relapses were based on PET / CT diagnosis, with Coline-11C being the most widely used radiopharmaceutical. Biochemical response rates ranged from 0% to 80%. The 5 years - Free Survival Biochemical recurrence was analyzed in 16 studies with rates of 0% up to 56.1%. The articles do not present high levels of evidence to draw strong conclusions. However, even if significant rates of biochemical recurrence are not evident in all studies, therapy directed to lymph node metastases may present good oncological results and postpone the onset of systemic therapy. The long-term impact in overall survival and quality of life, as well as the best strategies for case selection remains to be determined.

La declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para reportar revisiones sistemáticas / The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline to report systematic reviews

La declaración de ítems preferidos de reporte para revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis (PRISMA, por sus inicial es en inglés), publicada en 2009, fue diseñada para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a reportar de manera transparente las razones para realizar la revisión, y qué hicieron y encontraron los autores. Durante la última década, los avances en la metodología y la terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas requirieron una actualización de la guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 reemplaza la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de reporte que refleja los avances metodológicos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y presentación de los ítems se han modificado para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, el autor resume los aspectos relevantes de la actualización del instrumento y presenta la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 (de 27 elementos), la lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones para aplicar cada ítem, la lista de verificación de resúmenes de revisiones sistemáticas, y los diagramas de flujo para revisiones nuevas y actualizadas (traducidas al español en archivos MS Word para que puedan ser fácilmente editables y utilizables en la práctica). (AU)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic review authors transparently report the reasons for conducting the review, and what the authors did and found. Over the last decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology required an update of the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes a new reporting guidelinethat reflects methodological advances in identifying, selecting, assessing and synthesising studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, the author summarises the relevant aspects of the updated instrument and presents the PRISMA 2020 checklist (of 27 items), the extended checklist detailing recommendations for implementing each item, the checklist for summaries of systematic reviews, and the flowcharts for new and updated reviews (translated into Spanish in MS Word files so that they can be easily editable and usable in practice). (AU)

Revisiones rápidas: definiciones y usos / Rapid reviews: definitions and uses

Este artículo es el primero de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de esta revisión es presentar las revisiones rápidas, compararlas con las revisiones sistemáticas y mencionar su uso actual. Las revisiones rápidas utilizan una metodología similar a las revisiones sistemáticas, pero mediante atajos utilizados en su desarrollo; permiten alcanzar respuestas en menos de seis meses y con menos recursos, por lo que son utilizadas por tomadores de decisiones tanto en América como Europa. No existe consenso sobre cuáles atajos tienen menor impacto en la confiabilidad de las conclusiones, por lo que las revisiones rápidas son heterogéneas entre sí. Los consumidores deben identificar estos atajos en la metodología y ser precavidos en la interpretación de las conclusiones, aunque generalmente alcanzan respuestas concordantes con las obtenidas mediante una revisión sistemática tradicional. Su principal atractivo es ajustarse a las necesidades de los tomadores de decisiones en salud, cuando el contexto exige respuestas en plazos de tiempo acotados.

This article is the first in a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to present rapid reviews, compare them with systematic reviews, and mention how they can be used. Rapid reviews use a methodology like systematic reviews, but through shortcuts applied, they can attain answers in less than six months and with fewer resources. Decision-makers use them in both America and Europe. There is no consensus on which shortcuts have the least impact on the reliability of conclusions, so rapid reviews are heterogeneous. Users of rapid reviews should identify these shortcuts in the methodology and be cautious when interpreting the conclusions, although they generally reach answers concordant with those obtained through a formal systematic review. The principal value of rapid reviews is to respond to health decision-makers' needs when the context demands answers in limited time frames.

La revisión sistemática viva: nuevos aportes y desafíos / Living systematic review: new inputs and challenges

Este artículo es el segundo de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de este trabajo es describir la pertinencia, las consideraciones y los desafíos de las revisiones sistemáticas vivas. La revisión sistemática viva es una propuesta de actualización continua, que conserva el rigor y la calidad metodológica de una revisión sistemática. El modelo vivo es adecuado cuando la revisión busca responder una pregunta prioritaria para la toma de decisiones en salud, la certeza de la evidencia para esa pregunta es baja y es muy probable que surja nueva evidencia al respecto. Para que una revisión sistemática viva sea exitosa debe considerar varios aspectos, por ejemplo: que la búsqueda sea continua y automatizada, que existan criterios de actualización de la revisión, que se evalúe cómo se llevará a cabo la actualización del metanálisis y cómo será el proceso editorial, y que la publicación se amigable, entre otras. Al ser una propuesta relativamente nueva deberá enfrentar múltiples cambios que permitan su mejor funcionamiento, por lo que debemos estar atentos a estos cambios venideros.

This is the second article from a collaborative methodological series of biostatistics and clinical epidemiology narrative reviews. This review aims to describe living systematic reviews' relevance, the considerations that should be taken when producing one, and the challenges proper of this type of review. The living systematic review is a continuous update that maintains a systematic review's rigor and methodological quality. The living format is appropriate when the review aims to answer a priority question in terms of health decision-making, the existent certainty of the evidence for this question is low or very low, and new evidence will likely appear soon. To carry out a successful living systematic review, researchers should consider different things, such as: having a continuous and automated search, having update criteria, evaluating how to update the meta-analysis and how to perform the editorial process, and publishing in a friendly format, among others. As living systematic reviews are a new proposal, they will likely change in the future to improve their performance, so we will have to keep an eye on its future updates.