Page 24 - AnuarioMedClin2022
P. 24
información. La valoración de la calidad de estos es un paso crítico para evaluar e interpretar
los resultados mediante herramientas accesibles y en abierto para clínicos e investigadores.
Bibliografía
1.- Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, Helbach J, Hoffmann A, Mathes T, Pieper D. Nearly 80
systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology
and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 138:1-11
2.- Dartmouth Biomedical Libraries. The Well-Built, Patient-Oriented Clinical Question.
[Internet]. Disponible en https://libraryguides.nau.edu/ld.php?content_id=31871385 (acceso
04/03/2022)
3.- Haidich AB. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia. 2010: 29-37
4.- Madelon van Wely, The good, the bad and the ugly: meta-analyses, Hum. Reprod. 29
(8)2014, 1622–1626.
5.- Sutton, A.J., Cooper, N.J. & Jones, D.R. Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent
and efficient research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9:29
6.- Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines:
4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011
;64(4):407-15.
7.-Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias
in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ,
Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version
6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from
www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. (acceso 04/03/2022)
8.- Sterne J A C, Savović J, Page M J, Elbers R G, Blencowe N S, Boutron I et al. RoB 2: a
revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2019; 366 :l4898
9.- Current version of RoB 2. [Internet]. Disponible en
https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2
(acceso 04/03/2022)
10.- McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery:
problems and possible solutions. BMJ. 2002;324(7351):1448–51.
11.- Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa
Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. [Internet].
24
