[Ethics of care: Assessment of the ethical issues in the protocols or consensuses on mechanical restraint in force in Spain]. / Ética de los cuidados: valoración de los contenidos éticos en los protocolos o consensos de contención mecánica vigentes en España.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical restraints are widely used in health care practice, despite the numerous ethical conflicts they raise. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ethical considerations contemplated in the current protocols on mechanical restraint in Spain. METHOD: Systematic review in PubMed, WOS and Scopus, Google and Google Scholar. An ad hoc list of 30 items was used to evaluate the ethical content of the protocols. The quality of guidelines was assessed with AGREE II. RESULTS: The need for informed consent (IC) is reflected in 72% of the documents, the IC model sheet is included in only 41% of them, the rest of the analyzed characteristics on IC are fulfilled in percentages between 6% (the document includes the need to reevaluate the indication for IC) and 31% (the document contemplates to whom it should be requested). More than 20 ethical contents are reflected in 31% of them and less than 10 in 19% of the guidelines. The quality of the guides, according to AGREE II, ranged from 27 to 116 points (maximum possible 161), with a mean score of 68.7. Only 9% of the documents were classified as high quality. Finally, the correlation between ethical content and quality measured with AGREE II was 0.75. CONCLUSIONS: The variability of ethical contents in guidelines on mechanical restraints is very high. The ethical requirements to be included in protocols, consensus or Clinical Practice Guidelines should be defined.

Prevalence of elder abuse in the community and care settings: An umbrella review.

OBJECTIVE: Elder abuse, an important human rights issue and public health problem, contributes to increased disability and mortality. In the last decades, several reviews have synthesized primary studies to determine its prevalence. This umbrella review aimed to estimate the worldwide overall prevalence rate of elder abuse in the community and care setting. METHODS: Following prospective registration at PROSPERO (CRD42021281866) we conducted a search of eight electronic databases to identify systematic reviews from inception until 17 January 2023. The corrected covered area was calculated to estimate the potential overlap of primary studies between reviews. The quality of the selected reviews was assessed using a modified AMSTAR-2 instrument. We extracted data on the prevalence of any type of elder (people aged 60 years old or older) abuse in the community and care setting. RESULTS: There were 16 systematic reviews retrieved between 2007 and 2022, out of which ten captured prevalence globally, three in Iran, one in Turkey, one in China and one in Brazil. The 16 reviews included 136 primary studies in total between 1988 and 2020. The overlapping of studies between reviews was found to be moderate (5.5%). The quality of reviews was low (2, 12.5%) or critically low (14, 87.5%). The estimated range of global prevalence of overall elder abuse was wide (1.1-78%), while the estimations of specific abuse prevalence ranged from 0-81.8% for neglect, 1.1-78.9% for psychological abuse, 0.7-78.3% for financial abuse, 0.1-67.7% for physical abuse, and 0-59.2% for sexual abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Although the low quality of the evidence and the heterogeneity of the phenomenon makes it hard to give precise prevalence data, it is without a question that elder abuse is a prevalent problem with a wide dispersion. The focus of attention should shift towards interventions and policymaking to prevent this form of abuse.

Impact of mediterranean diet promotion on environmental sustainability: a longitudinal analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This article aims to estimate the differences in environmental impact (greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions, land use, energy used, acidification and potential eutrophication) after one year of promoting a Mediterranean diet (MD). METHODS: Baseline and 1-year follow-up data from 5800 participants in the PREDIMED-Plus study were used. Each participant's food intake was estimated using validated semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires, and the adherence to MD using the Dietary Score. The influence of diet on environmental impact was assessed through the EAT-Lancet Commission tables. The influence of diet on environmental impact was assessed through the EAT-Lancet Commission tables. The association between MD adherence and its environmental impact was calculated using adjusted multivariate linear regression models. RESULTS: After one year of intervention, the kcal/day consumed was significantly reduced (-125,1 kcal/day), adherence to a MD pattern was improved (+0,9) and the environmental impact due to the diet was significantly reduced (GHG: -361 g/CO2-eq; Acidification:-11,5 g SO2-eq; Eutrophication:-4,7 g PO4-eq; Energy use:-842,7 kJ; and Land use:-2,2 m2). Higher adherence to MD (high vs. low) was significantly associated with lower environmental impact both at baseline and one year follow-up. Meat products had the greatest environmental impact in all the factors analysed, both at baseline and at one-year follow-up, in spite of the reduction observed in their consumption. CONCLUSIONS: A program promoting a MD, after one year of intervention, significantly reduced the environmental impact in all the factors analysed. Meat products had the greatest environmental impact in all the dimensions analysed.

Quality indicators for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer integrated assistance: A critical appraisal / Indicadores de calidad para el diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer de mama en el proceso asistencial integrado de cáncer de mama

Introduction Quality indicators (QIs) are essential for adequate control of the health care management process, recognizing areas of improvement and providing solutions. We aimed to evaluate the Integrated Breast Cancer (BC) Care Process QIs. Methods We studied 487 consecutive BC cases diagnosed from November 1st, 2013, to November 30th, 2019, in a Spanish healthcare area, and we estimated the associated QIs. Results Four indicators did not meet the standards and were analysed based on related sociodemographic and clinical variables. The surgical delay after a multidisciplinary team discussion (mean 64%, IQR 59.6–68.5) was lower in elder people (p=0.027), and early histological grades (p=0.019) and stages (p=0.008). The adjuvant treatment delay (mean 55.7%, IQR 51.1–60.3) was lower in advance stages (p=0.002) and when there was no reoperation (p=0.001). The surgical delay after inclusion (mean 83.2%, IQR 79.3–87.2) was lower in early histological grades (p=0.048). The immediate reconstruction (mean 42.3%, IQR 34.0–50.5) reached 72.3% in young women compared to 11.8% in older than 70 years (p=0.001) and it was higher in early stages (45.3% vs 36.2%; p=0.049). Conclusion The study of QIs evaluated their compliance and analysed the variables influencing them to propose improvement measures. Not all the indicators were equally valuable. Some depended on the available resources, and others on the mix of patients or complementary treatments. It would be essential to identify the specific target populations to estimate the indicators or provide standards stratified by the related variables (AU)

Introducción Los indicadores de calidad (IC) son esenciales para el adecuado control del proceso asistencial en el sistema sanitario, permitiendo el reconocimiento de áreas de mejora y proporcionando soluciones. Nuestro propósito ha sido evaluar los IC en el proceso asistencial integrado cáncer de mama (CM). Métodos Se estudiaron 487 casos consecutivos de CM diagnosticados desde noviembre de 2013 hasta 2019 en un área sanitaria de España y se estimaron los IC asociados. Resultados Cuatro indicadores no cumplieron los estándares de calidad y fueron analizados en función de las variables sociodemográficas posiblemente relacionadas. El retraso quirúrgico tras el comité multidisciplinar (media 64%, rango intercuartílico [IQR] 59,6-68,5) fue menor en pacientes más mayores (p=0,027), y en grados histológicos (p=0,019) y estadios (p=0,008) más tempranos. El retraso en el tratamiento adyuvante (media 55,7%, IQR 51,1-60,3) fue menor en estadios más avanzados (p=0,002) y cuando no hubo necesidad de rescisión (p=0,001). El retraso quirúrgico tras la inclusión en lista de espera (media 83,2%, IQR 79,3-87,2) fue menor en grados histológicos más tempranos (p=0,048). La reconstrucción inmediata (media 42,3%, IQR 34,0-50,5) se realizó en un 72,3% de las mujeres jóvenes comparado con tan solo un 11,8% de las mayores de 70 años (p=0,001) y fue mayor en estadios tempranos (45,3% vs. 36,2%; p=0,049). Conclusión El estudio de los IC evaluó su cumplimiento y analizó las variables que los influencian para proponer medidas que los mejoren. No todos los indicadores pudieron evaluarse de igual forma. Algunos dependieron de los recursos disponibles, otros del tipo de paciente y otros de los tratamientos complementarios. Sería necesario identificar las poblaciones diana para estimar los IC más adecuados o proporcionar estándares estratificados por las variables relacionadas (AU)

Quality indicators for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer integrated assistance: A critical appraisal.

INTRODUCTION: Quality indicators (QIs) are essential for adequate control of the health care management process, recognizing areas of improvement and providing solutions. We aimed to evaluate the Integrated Breast Cancer (BC) Care Process QIs. METHODS: We studied 487 consecutive BC cases diagnosed from November 1st, 2013, to November 30th, 2019, in a Spanish healthcare area, and we estimated the associated QIs. RESULTS: Four indicators did not meet the standards and were analysed based on related sociodemographic and clinical variables. The surgical delay after a multidisciplinary team discussion (mean 64%, IQR 59.6-68.5) was lower in elder people (p=0.027), and early histological grades (p=0.019) and stages (p=0.008). The adjuvant treatment delay (mean 55.7%, IQR 51.1-60.3) was lower in advance stages (p=0.002) and when there was no reoperation (p=0.001). The surgical delay after inclusion (mean 83.2%, IQR 79.3-87.2) was lower in early histological grades (p=0.048). The immediate reconstruction (mean 42.3%, IQR 34.0-50.5) reached 72.3% in young women compared to 11.8% in older than 70 years (p=0.001) and it was higher in early stages (45.3% vs 36.2%; p=0.049). CONCLUSION: The study of QIs evaluated their compliance and analysed the variables influencing them to propose improvement measures. Not all the indicators were equally valuable. Some depended on the available resources, and others on the mix of patients or complementary treatments. It would be essential to identify the specific target populations to estimate the indicators or provide standards stratified by the related variables.

Intensive Weight-Loss Lifestyle Intervention Using Mediterranean Diet and COVID-19 Risk in Older Adults: Secondary Analysis of PREDIMED-Plus Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We tested the effects of a weight-loss intervention encouraging energy-reduced MedDiet and physical activity (PA) in comparison to ad libitum MedDiet on COVID-19 incidence in older adults. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of PREDIMED-Plus, a prospective, ongoing, multicentre randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community-dwelling, free-living participants in PREDIMED-Plus trial. PARTICIPANTS: 6,874 Spanish older adults (55-75 years, 49% women) with overweight/obesity and metabolic syndrome. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to Intervention (IG) or Control (CG) Group. IG received intensive behavioural intervention for weight loss with an energy-reduced MedDiet intervention and PA promotion. CG was encouraged to consume ad libitum MedDiet without PA recommendations. MEASUREMENTS: COVID-19 was ascertained by an independent Event Committee until December 31, 2021. COX regression models compared the effect of PREDIMED-Plus interventions on COVID-19 risk. RESULTS: Overall, 653 COVID-19 incident cases were documented (IG:317; CG:336) over a median (IQR) follow-up of 5.8 (1.3) years (inclusive of 4.0 (1.2) years before community transmission of COVID-19) in both groups. A significantly lowered risk of COVID-19 incidence was not evident in IG, compared to CG (fully-adjusted HR (95% CI): 0.96 (0.81,1.12)). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence to show that an intensive weight-loss intervention encouraging energy-reduced MedDiet and PA significantly lowered COVID-19 risk in older adults with overweight/obesity and metabolic syndrome in comparison to ad libitum MedDiet. Recommendations to improve adherence to MedDiet provided with or without lifestyle modification suggestions for weight loss may have similar effects in protecting against COVID-19 risk in older adults with high cardiovascular risks.

Diseño de un modelo de ronda de seguridad para unidades de cuidados intensivos / Design of a safety round model for intensive care units

Introducción: Las rondas de seguridad (RS) son una herramienta operativa que permite conocer la adherencia a las buenas prácticas, ayuda a identificar riesgos e incidentes en seguridad del paciente (SP), permitiendo implementar acciones de mejora. El objetivo de este trabajo fue el diseño de un procedimiento para realizar RS en una unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI). Métodos: Elaboración de un listado de verificación para el desarrollo de RS en una UCI mediante técnica de grupo nominal, con la participación de directivos, mandos intermedios y profesionales de diferentes disciplinas y categorías. En primer lugar, un grupo de expertos consensuó, atendiendo a las recomendaciones en buenas prácticas en SP, la definición de ítems, su codificación, los criterios de cumplimiento y el impacto de su incumplimiento. Posteriormente, determinó su viabilidad mediante un estudio transversal a través del pilotaje de 2 RS para ajustar los ítems en condiciones de práctica clínica real. Resultados: Se ha obtenido un modelo de RS específico para UCI mediante un listado de verificación. El grupo de expertos elaboró un primer listado compuesto por 39 ítems de 6 dimensiones esenciales y definió el modo de realización. El tiempo medio de realización de las 2 RS fue de 85minutos, incluyendo el briefing y debriefing posterior. Tras el pilotaje de validación se redujo las dimensiones a 5, se suprimió 3 ítems, se trasladó 2 ítems a otra dimensión y se modificó 3 ítems relativos a infecciones nosocomiales y consentimiento informado. Además, se redefinieron las fuentes de datos, los criterios de cumplimiento y su peso relativo. El listado definitivo fue considerado útil y relevante para mejorar la práctica. Conclusiones: Mediante una metodología de consenso se ha construido un listado de verificación para ser usado en las RS de una UCI. Este modelo puede servir de base para su empleo en servicios asistenciales de similares características.(AU)

Introduction: Safety Rounds (SR) are an operational tool that allow knowing adherence to good practices, help identify risks and incidents in patient safety (PS), allowing improvement actions to be implemented. The objective of this work was the design of a procedure to perform SR in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Methods: Preparation of a checklist for the development of SR in the ICU through the nominal group technique, with the participation of managers, middle managers and professionals from different disciplines and categories. In the first place, a group of experts agreed, based on the recommendations on good practices in PS, the definition of items, their coding, the criteria for compliance and the impact of non-compliance. Subsequently, its viability was determined through a cross-sectional study through the piloting of two SRs to adjust the items in real clinical practice conditions. Results: A specific SR model for ICUs has been obtained through a checklist. The group of experts prepared a first list made up of 39 items of 6 essential dimensions and defined the method of implementation. Mean time to complete the two SRs was 85minutes, including the briefing and subsequent debriefing. After the validation pilot, the dimensions were reduced to 5, 3 items were deleted, 2 items were transferred to another dimension and 3 items related to nosocomial infections and informed consent were modified. In addition, the data sources, the compliance criteria and their relative weight were redefined. The final list was considered useful and relevant to improve practice. Conclusions: Through a consensus methodology, a checklist has been built to be used in the RS of an ICU. This model can serve as a basis for its use in healthcare services with similar characteristics.(AU)

Design of a safety round model for intensive care units.

INTRODUCTION: Safety Rounds (SR) are an operational tool that allow knowing adherence to good practices, help identify risks and incidents in patient safety (PS), allowing improvement actions to be implemented. The objective of this work was the design of a procedure to perform SR in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). METHODS: Preparation of a checklist for the development of SR in the ICU through the nominal group technique, with the participation of managers, middle managers and professionals from different disciplines and categories. In the first place, a group of experts agreed, based on the recommendations on good practices in PS, the definition of items, their coding, the criteria for compliance and the impact of non-compliance. Subsequently, its viability was determined through a cross-sectional study through the piloting of two SRs to adjust the items in real clinical practice conditions. RESULTS: A specific SR model for ICUs has been obtained through a checklist. The group of experts prepared a first list made up of 39 items of 6 essential dimensions and defined the method of implementation. Mean time to complete the two SRs was 85 min, including the briefing and subsequent debriefing. After the validation pilot, the dimensions were reduced to 5, 3 items were deleted, 2 items were transferred to another dimension and 3 items related to nosocomial infections and informed consent were modified. In addition, the data sources, the compliance criteria and their relative weight were redefined. The final list was considered useful and relevant to improve practice. CONCLUSIONS: Through a consensus methodology, a checklist has been built to be used in the RS of an ICU. This model can serve as a basis for its use in healthcare services with similar characteristics.

Evidence-based medicine needs patient and public involvement to remain relevant: A proposal for a new curriculum / La medicina basada en la evidencia requiere la participación de la ciudadanía para mantener su relevancia: Propuesta para un nuevo plan de estudios

Introduction Public partnerships, a route to sharing expertise, networks and resources anchored in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, has been championed by multiple stakeholders. Objective To propose a new evidence-based medicine (EBM) curriculum for harnessing patient and public expertise to ensure that EBM teaching and learning can become more relevant and impactful. Methods A curriculum development group comprising of EBM teachers, patient and public involvement representatives, clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, public health experts and educationalists, with experience of delivering and evaluating face-to-face and online EBM courses across many countries and continents, prepared a new EBM course. Results A student-centred, problem-based and clinically integrated course for teaching and learning EBM was developed. In the spirit of shared decision-making, practitioners can learn to support patients, articulate their perspectives, recognise the need for their contribution and ensure community involvement when generating and applying evidence. With end users in mind, the application of research findings, delivery of care and EBM effectiveness in the workplace would carry increased priority. Conclusion Embracing patients as EBM collaborators can help deliver cognitive diversity and inspire different ways of thinking and working. Adopting the proposed approach in EBM education lays the foundations for a joint practitioner–patient partnership to ask, acquire, appraise and apply EBM in a more holistic context which will strengthen the EBM proposition (AU)

Introducción Las asociaciones de pacientes y ciudadanos constituyen una vía para compartir experiencias, redes y recursos siendo promovidas por los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible de la Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU), y defendidas por todas las partes y sectores interesados. Objetivo Proponer un nuevo plan de estudios de medicina basada en la evidencia (MBE) para aprovechar la experiencia de los pacientes con el fin de garantizar de que la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la MBE sean más relevantes e impactantes. Métodos Un grupo de expertos compuesto por profesores del área de MBE, representantes de pacientes, médicos, epidemiólogos clínicos, expertos en salud pública y pedagogos, con experiencia en la impartición y evaluación de cursos de MBE presenciales y online en el ámbito internacional, desarrolló e implementó un curso de MBE. Resultados Se desarrolló un curso centrado en el estudiante, basado en problemas y clínicamente integrado para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la MBE. En el espíritu de la toma de decisiones compartida, los profesionales pueden aprender a apoyar a los pacientes, a articular sus perspectivas, a reconocer la necesidad de su contribución y a garantizar la participación de la comunidad a la hora de generar y aplicar las pruebas. La aplicación de los resultados de la investigación, la prestación de cuidados y la eficacia de la MBE en el lugar de trabajo son las áreas de mayor prioridad para los asistentes. Conclusiones Adoptar a los pacientes como colaboradores de la MBE puede ayudar a proporcionar diversidad cognitiva e inspirar diferentes formas de pensar y trabajar. La adopción del enfoque propuesto en la formación en MBE sienta las bases para una colaboración conjunta entre profesionales y pacientes para preguntar, adquirir, valorar y aplicar la MBE en un contexto más holístico que reforzará la propuesta de MBE (AU)

Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: V. Cómo interpretar la evidencia / Systematic reviews in five steps: V. Interpreting the findings

El último paso en una revisión sistemática es interpretar la evidencia de forma que pueda ser útil para sustentar la toma de resultados. Es importante presentar los resultados de forma claramente diferenciada, asignar el nivel de fuerza de la evidencia que respalda cada uno de ellos teniendo en cuenta factores como el diseño de los estudios, su calidad metodológica y el sesgo de publicación. También es necesario considerar las variaciones en la fuerza de la asociación. El objetivo es detectar en qué tipo de pacientes la intervención analizada será más o menos efectiva, tendrá mayor o menor impacto una exposición determinada, o será de mayor utilidad una prueba diagnóstica. En esta fase, para facilitar la interpretación de los resultados, se puede añadir una estimación de la magnitud de la asociación, bien global o bien estratificada en función de las características de los participantes. Toda esta información ayudará a la hora de formular recomendaciones prácticas con utilidad clínica. (AU)

The last step in a systematic review is the interpretation of the findings. The important findings need to be explicitly identified. A level of strength of evidence should be assigned to support each key finding, based on factors such as study design, methodological quality and risk of publication bias. Variations in the magnitude of associations observed also need to be explored. The aim of this analysis is to determine in which clinical groups the intervention is more or less effective, the impact of exposure is greater or lesser, or a diagnostic test is more useful. At this stage, for better interpretation of the findings, the magnitude of the association can be estimated either globally or stratified according to the characteristics of the participants. All this is helpful in formulating recommendations for clinical practice and policy. (AU)

Evidence-based medicine needs patient and public involvement to remain relevant: A proposal for a new curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: Public partnerships, a route to sharing expertise, networks and resources anchored in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, has been championed by multiple stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: To propose a new evidence-based medicine (EBM) curriculum for harnessing patient and public expertise to ensure that EBM teaching and learning can become more relevant and impactful. METHODS: A curriculum development group comprising of EBM teachers, patient and public involvement representatives, clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, public health experts and educationalists, with experience of delivering and evaluating face-to-face and online EBM courses across many countries and continents, prepared a new EBM course. RESULTS: A student-centred, problem-based and clinically integrated course for teaching and learning EBM was developed. In the spirit of shared decision-making, practitioners can learn to support patients, articulate their perspectives, recognise the need for their contribution and ensure community involvement when generating and applying evidence. With end users in mind, the application of research findings, delivery of care and EBM effectiveness in the workplace would carry increased priority. CONCLUSIONS: Embracing patients as EBM collaborators can help deliver cognitive diversity and inspire different ways of thinking and working. Adopting the proposed approach in EBM education lays the foundations for a joint practitioner-patient partnership to ask, acquire, appraise and apply EBM in a more holistic context which will strengthen the EBM proposition.

[Systematic reviews in five steps: V. Interpreting the findings]. / Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: V. Cómo interpretar la evidencia.

The last step in a systematic review is the interpretation of the findings. The important findings need to be explicitly identified. A level of strength of evidence should be assigned to support each key finding, based on factors such as study design, methodological quality and risk of publication bias. Variations in the magnitude of associations observed also need to be explored. The aim of this analysis is to determine in which clinical groups the intervention is more or less effective, the impact of exposure is greater or lesser, or a diagnostic test is more useful. At this stage, for better interpretation of the findings, the magnitude of the association can be estimated either globally or stratified according to the characteristics of the participants. All this is helpful in formulating recommendations for clinical practice and policy.

Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: IV. Cómo sintetizar los resultados / Systematic reviews in five steps: IV. Summarizing the evidence

En este artículo, el cuarto de una serie de cinco sobre revisiones sistemáticas, se muestra cómo recopilar y resumir los resultados de los estudios incluidos en una revisión. La síntesis de los datos extraídos consiste en tabular las características y la calidad de los estudios incluidos, y resumir los efectos y la magnitud de las asociaciones encontradas. Opcionalmente pueden utilizarse métodos estadísticos para explorar la heterogeneidad y sus fuentes. La magnitud de la heterogeneidad puede plantear la duda de si es viable realizar un metaanálisis general o es preferible hacerlo en subgrupos. Por último, se proporcionan recursos para evaluar las razones clínicas y metodológicas de la heterogeneidad (AU)

This fourth in a series of five articles on systematic reviews demonstrates how to compile and summarize the results of the studies included in a review. The synthesis of the extracted data consists of tabulating the characteristics, and the quality of the included studies, with the effects or the magnitude of the associations found in them. Statistical methods can be used to explore the differences between studies and the reasons for the inconsistencies. The magnitude of this heterogeneity influences whether it is feasible to perform an overall or subgroup meta-analysis. Finally, information is provided both to assessment of clinical and methodological reasons for heterogeneity (AU)

Revisiones sistemáticas en cincopasos: III. Cómo evaluar la calidad de los estudios / Systematic reviews in fivesteps: III. Assessing the quality of the literature

La evaluación de la calidad de los estudios desempeña un papel fundamental en cada paso del proceso de realización de una revisión sistemática. Para realizar una evaluación precisa se utilizan listas de comprobación que incluyen las cuestiones genéricas relevantes al diseño de los estudios incluidos en la revisión. Los elementos de la lista utilizada pueden modificarse en relación con los componentes específicos que definen la pregunta de la revisión. La evaluación de calidad se utiliza para describir los estudios seleccionados, explicar la heterogeneidad, decidir acerca de la idoneidad de un metaanálisis, evaluar la solidez de la evidencia recopilada (existencia de sesgos) y formular recomendaciones para futuras investigaciones (AU)

Study quality assessment plays a key role in every step of the process when conducting a systematic review. Checklists are used to perform an accurate quality assessment. They include generic questions relevant to the design of the studies included in the review. The checklist items can be modified in relation to the question-specific components related to participants, interventions and outcomes. Quality assessment is used to describe the selected studies, explain heterogeneity, decide on the feasibility of undertaking a meta-analysis, assess the strength of the collated evidence, and make recommendations for future research (AU)

Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: II. Cómo identificar los estudios relevantes / Systematic reviews in five steps: II. Identifying relevant literature

Este artículo, el segundo de la serie de revisiones sistemáticas, se centra en lo que debería ser el segundo paso: cómo identificar y seleccionar los estudios relevantes para la revisión planificada. La búsqueda bibliográfica, en la que se emplean términos relacionados con la pregunta formulada en el primer paso, habrá de ser exhaustiva y amplia. Es importante establecer criterios de selección para incluir los estudios relevantes y descartar aquellos que no responden a la pregunta formulada. Detalles como ampliar el espectro de bases de datos consultadas, evitar restringir las búsquedas a un solo idioma, gestionar correctamente las referencias y registrar las decisiones tomadas durante todo el proceso son factores ganadores para que la identificación de estudios sea satisfactoria (AU)

This article focuses on the second step of a systematic review, i.e. how to identify relevant studies for the planned review. The search, using terms related to the questions framed in the previous step, should be comprehensive. However, it is important to establish selection criteria to include relevant studies and to exclude those that might present a risk of bias at this stage. Details such as broadening the spectrum of electronic databases consulted, avoiding restricting searches to a single language, managing references correctly, and recording decisions made throughout the process are winning factors for successful study identification (AU)

Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: I. Cómo formular una pregunta para la que se pueda obtener una respuesta válida / Systematic reviews in five steps: I. Framing questions to obtain valid answers

Este es el primero de una serie de cinco artículos en los que se describen los pasos a seguir para realizar, con éxito, una revisión sistemática. En este primer artículo se aborda el primer paso: ¿cómo formular correctamente la pregunta previa a una revisión sistemática? En él se va a tratar cómo estructurar la pregunta de forma adecuada en función de los componentes principales: los participantes, las intervenciones o exposiciones comparadas, el desenlace y el diseño de los estudios; cómo detectar y considerar las posibles variaciones en cada uno de los componentes que puedan surgir antes o durante la revisión, y finalmente, cómo, dónde y por qué es conveniente registrar el protocolo de la revisión sistemática (AU)

This is the first in a series of five articles on the steps to follow to conduct a successful systematic review. This first article addresses how to formulate the right questions to initiate a systematic review. The key issues are: how to structure the questions appropriately according to the main components: the participants, the interventions or exposures compared, the outcomes measured and the study design; how to anticipate and consider possible variations in each of the components that may arise during the review; and finally, how to prospectively register the protocol of the systematic review (AU)

[Systematic reviews in fivesteps: III. Assessing the quality of the literature]. / Revisiones sistemáticas en cincopasos: III. Cómo evaluar la calidad de los estudios.

Study quality assessment plays a key role in every step of the process when conducting a systematic review. Checklists are used to perform an accurate quality assessment. They include generic questions relevant to the design of the studies included in the review. The checklist items can be modified in relation to the question-specific components related to participants, interventions and outcomes. Quality assessment is used to describe the selected studies, explain heterogeneity, decide on the feasibility of undertaking a meta-analysis, assess the strength of the collated evidence, and make recommendations for future research.

[Systematic reviews in five steps: I. Framing questions to obtain valid answers]. / Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: I. Cómo formular una pregunta para la que se pueda obtener una respuesta válida.

This is the first in a series of five articles on the steps to follow to conduct a successful systematic review. This first article addresses how to formulate the right questions to initiate a systematic review. The key issues are: how to structure the questions appropriately according to the main components: the participants, the interventions or exposures compared, the outcomes measured and the study design; how to anticipate and consider possible variations in each of the components that may arise during the review; and finally, how to prospectively register the protocol of the systematic review.

[Systematic reviews in five steps: II. Identifying relevant literature]. / Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: II. Cómo identificar los estudios relevantes.

This article focuses on the second step of a systematic review, i.e. how to identify relevant studies for the planned review. The search, using terms related to the questions framed in the previous step, should be comprehensive. However, it is important to establish selection criteria to include relevant studies and to exclude those that might present a risk of bias at this stage. Details such as broadening the spectrum of electronic databases consulted, avoiding restricting searches to a single language, managing references correctly, and recording decisions made throughout the process are winning factors for successful study identification.

[Systematic reviews in five steps: IV. Summarizing the evidence]. / Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: IV. Cómo sintetizar los resultados.

This fourth in a series of five articles on systematic reviews demonstrates how to compile and summarize the results of the studies included in a review. The synthesis of the extracted data consists of tabulating the characteristics, and the quality of the included studies, with the effects or the magnitude of the associations found in them. Statistical methods can be used to explore the differences between studies and the reasons for the inconsistencies. The magnitude of this heterogeneity influences whether it is feasible to perform an overall or subgroup meta-analysis. Finally, information is provided both to assessment of clinical and methodological reasons for heterogeneity.