RESUMO
Background: Congenital heart disease (CHD) is a severe childhood health problem worldwide. This study analyzes the scientific production on CHD published in Scopus during the last decade. Methods: This study assessed the research on CHD conducted during the 2011-2020 period. Indexed publications were identified using a list of keywords consisting of MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) and Emtree (EMBASE) terms for the category "Congenital Heart Defects." The studies obtained were analyzed using the SciVal platform, and the production, impact, and collaboration indicators were considered. Additionally, an analysis of co-occurrence between countries and keywords was carried out with the VOSviewer software. Results: The study found 8934 articles on CHD. A growing trend was observed during the last decade. The distribution of the scientific production at the international level shows that most publications are from the United States, China, and the United Kingdom, whereas Latin American countries have the lowest production. The articles analyzed contain a total of 89,835 citations. Most studies are published in high-impact journals (Q1), with 3273 studies corresponding to 39.3% of the total production analyzed. In the keyword analysis, we found five areas investigated. Conclusions: Scientific production has shown sustained growth in the past years. Increased scientific production in specific research areas may have helped decrease morbimortality due to CHD.
RESUMO
AIM AND METHOD: To determine the effect on decisional-related and clinical outcomes of decision aids for depression treatment in adults in randomised clinical trials. In January 2019, a systematic search was conducted in five databases. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Meta-analyses were performed, and standardised and weighted mean differences were calculated, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated with GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Six randomised clinical trials were included. The pooled estimates showed that decision aids for depression treatment had a beneficial effect on patients' decisional conflict, patient knowledge and information exchange between patient and health professional. However, no statistically significant effect was found for doctor facilitation, treatment adherence or depressive symptoms. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Using decision aids to choose treatment in patients with depression may have a a beneficial effect on decisional-related outcomes, but it may not translate into an improvement in clinical outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a widely used instrument to assess depression in older adults. The short GDS versions that have four (GDS-4) and five items (GDS-5) represent alternatives for depression screening in limited-resource settings. However, their accuracy remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of the GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions for depression screening in older adults. METHODS: Until May 2020, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar; for studies that have assessed the sensitivity and specificity of GDS-4 and GDS-5 for depression screening in older adults. We conducted meta-analyses of the sensitivity and specificity of those studies that used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) as reference standard. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed bivariate random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) at each reported common cut-off. For the overall meta-analyses, we evaluated each GDS-4 version or GDS-5 version separately by each cut-off, and for investigations of heterogeneity, we assessed altogether across similar GDS versions by each cut-off. Also, we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included and meta-analyzed, assessing eleven different GDS versions. The number of participants included was 5048. When including all versions together, at a cut-off 2, GDS-4 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70-0.82) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.68-0.81); while GDS-5 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 (0.80-0.90) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.69-0.81). We found results for more than one GDS-4 version at cut-off points 1, 2, and 3; and for more than one GDS-5 version at cut-off points 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mostly, significant subgroup differences at different test thresholds across versions were found. The accuracy of the different GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions showed a high heterogeneity. There was high risk of bias in the index test domain. Also, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for most of the GDS versions. CONCLUSIONS: We found several GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions that showed great heterogeneity in estimates of sensitivity and specificity, mostly with a low or very low certainty of the evidence. Altogether, our results indicate the need for more well-designed studies that compare different GDS versions.
Assuntos
Depressão/diagnóstico , Avaliação Geriátrica/métodos , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Escalas de Graduação Psiquiátrica , Idoso , Manual Diagnóstico e Estatístico de Transtornos Mentais , Humanos , Classificação Internacional de Doenças/normas , Programas de Rastreamento/normas , Padrões de Referência , Reprodutibilidade dos TestesRESUMO
We aimed to comment on the methodological differences and applications of these three types of reviews with special attention to Latin America. Among these new types of reviews we have the scoping review, umbrella review and focused mapping review synthesis. Scoping reviews identify the nature and extent of the evidence, umbrella reviews focus on the synthesis of all systematic reviews that address the same health problem, while focused mapping review syntheses are valid options when a classical mapping of the evidence is not feasible, due to addressing too many articles. As researchers in Latin America become familiar with the methodology and usefulness of these new types of review, an increase in scientific production will be observed.
Nuestro objetivo fue comentar las diferencias metodológicas y aplicaciones de tres nuevos tipos de revisiones con especial atención a Latinoamérica. Entre estos nuevos tipos de revisiones tenemos a las revisiones de alcance, revisiones paraguas y síntesis enfocada en revisión de mapas. Las revisiones de alcance identifican la naturaleza y extensión de la evidencia, las revisiones paraguas se centran en la síntesis de todas las revisiones sistemáticas que abordan un mismo problema de salud, mientras que las síntesis enfocadas en la revisión de mapas son opciones válidas cuando resulta inviable un mapeo clásico de la evidencia, por abordar demasiados artículos. En la medida de que los investigadores en Latinoamérica se familiaricen con la metodología y utilidad de estos nuevos tipos de revisión, se observará un incremento de la producción científica.
Assuntos
Pesquisadores , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , HumanosRESUMO
RESUMEN Nuestro objetivo fue comentar las diferencias metodológicas y aplicaciones de tres nuevos tipos de revisiones con especial atención a Latinoamérica. Entre estos nuevos tipos de revisiones tenemos a las revisiones de alcance, revisiones paraguas y síntesis enfocada en revisión de mapas. Las revisiones de alcance identifican la naturaleza y extensión de la evidencia, las revisiones paraguas se centran en la síntesis de todas las revisiones sistemáticas que abordan un mismo problema de salud, mientras que las síntesis enfocadas en la revisión de mapas son opciones válidas cuando resulta inviable un mapeo clásico de la evidencia, por abordar demasiados artículos. En la medida de que los investigadores en Latinoamérica se familiaricen con la metodología y utilidad de estos nuevos tipos de revisión, se observará un incremento de la producción científica.
ABSTRACT We aimed to comment on the methodological differences and applications of these three types of reviews with special attention to Latin America. Among these new types of reviews we have the scoping review, umbrella review and focused mapping review synthesis. Scoping reviews identify the nature and extent of the evidence, umbrella reviews focus on the synthesis of all systematic reviews that address the same health problem, while focused mapping review syntheses are valid options when a classical mapping of the evidence is not feasible, due to addressing too many articles. As researchers in Latin America become familiar with the methodology and usefulness of these new types of review, an increase in scientific production will be observed.
Assuntos
Revisão , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Estudos de Avaliação como Assunto , Metodologia como Assunto , Revisões Sistemáticas como AssuntoRESUMO
RESUMEN Nuestro objetivo fue comentar las diferencias metodológicas y aplicaciones de tres nuevos tipos de revisiones con especial atención a Latinoamérica. Entre estos nuevos tipos de revisiones tenemos a las revisiones de alcance, revisiones paraguas y síntesis enfocada en revisión de mapas. Las revisiones de alcance identifican la naturaleza y extensión de la evidencia, las revisiones paraguas se centran en la síntesis de todas las revisiones sistemáticas que abordan un mismo problema de salud, mientras que las síntesis enfocadas en la revisión de mapas son opciones válidas cuando resulta inviable un mapeo clásico de la evidencia, por abordar demasiados artículos. En la medida de que los investigadores en Latinoamérica se familiaricen con la metodología y utilidad de estos nuevos tipos de revisión, se observará un incremento de la producción científica.
ABSTRACT We aimed to comment on the methodological differences and applications of these three types of reviews with special attention to Latin America. Among these new types of reviews we have the scoping review, umbrella review and focused mapping review synthesis. Scoping reviews identify the nature and extent of the evidence, umbrella reviews focus on the synthesis of all systematic reviews that address the same health problem, while focused mapping review syntheses are valid options when a classical mapping of the evidence is not feasible, due to addressing too many articles. As researchers in Latin America become familiar with the methodology and usefulness of these new types of review, an increase in scientific production will be observed.
Assuntos
Estudos de Avaliação como Assunto , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Pesquisadores , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Metodologia como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide. Research activity in Latin American countries might be the key to solving, or at least improving, the understanding of stroke-related issues in the region. Our aim was to describe and analyze the research output on stroke in Latin America. METHODS: We performed a bibliometric analysis of studies on stroke in Latin America reported from 2003 to 2017 in Scopus-indexed journals. We extracted the annual research, countries, journals, authors, institutions, citation frequency, and journal metrics. The data were quantitatively analyzed. Publication activity was adjusted to the countries by population size. Also, the results from an author and country co-occurrence analysis are presented as network visualization maps using VOSviewer. RESULTS: A total of 2298 Latin American stroke-related reports were identified, most were original research reports (72%). The number of reported studies had increased from 2003 to 2017 (P < 0.001). Brazil was the country with the greatest production with 1273 reports (55.4%), followed by Argentina and Mexico. No association was found between stroke prevalence and mortality and the scientific production of the country. Six universities and three hospitals were the most prolific institutions. A collaborative relationship was found between the United States and Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico. The intraregional collaboration of research on stroke was low among Latin American countries. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the continuous increase in research output from Latin American countries, more effort is needed to strengthen the research capacity by developing networks and collaborative research projects, ideally among the Latin American countries themselves.
