Respuesta: Modificaciones y exenciones del consentimiento informado y las guías Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences / Reply: Modifications and waivers of informed consent and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences guidelines

No disponible

Recomendaciones para el Reporte de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Meta-análisis / Guidelines for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

El meta-análisis es una metodología esencial que permite a los investigadores sintetizar la evidencia científica disponible sobre una determinada cuestión de investigación. Debido a su amplia aplicabilidad en la mayoría de los campos de investigación aplicados, es realmente importante que los meta-análisis se escriban y se reporten de manera apropiada. En este artículo proponemos pautas para reportar los resultados de un meta-análisis en una revista científica como Anales de Psicología. Concretamente, se detalla la estructura para reportar un meta-análisis siguiendo sus fases. Además, proporcionamos recomendaciones relacionadas con las tareas usuales en meta-análisis. Un meta-análisis reciente centrado en el campo de la psicología es usado para ilustrar las guías propuestas. Finalmente, presentamos algunas observaciones finales

Meta-analysis is an essential methodology that allows researchers to synthesize the scientific evidence available on a given research question. Due to its wide applicability in most applied research fields, it is really important that meta-analyses be written and reported appropriately. In this paper we propose some guidelines to report the results of a meta-analysis in a scientific journal as Annals of Psychology. Concretely, the structure for reporting a meta-analysis following its different stages is detailed. In addition, some recommendations related to the usual tasks when conducting a meta-analysis are provided. A recent meta-analysis focused on the psychological field is used to illustrate the guidelines proposed. Finally, some concluding remarks are presented

Potential impact of (rs 4645878) BAX promoter -248G > A and (rs 1042522) TP53 72Arg > pro polymorphisms on epithelial ovarian cancer patients

Background. In India, Epithelial ovarian cancer has emerged as one of the most common malignancies affecting women. Tumor protein 53 (TP53) induces expression of the B cell lymphoma 2-associated X protein (BAX) gene by directly binding to the TP53-binding element in the BAX promoter. Therefore, we hypothesized that single-nucleotide polymorphism of BAX promoter −248G>A and TP53 72Arg>Pro gene may jointly contribute to ovarian cancer risk. Objectives. This study aimed at exploring the association of BAX promoter −248G>A and TP53 72Arg>Pro gene polymorphism with risk of developing EOC and its clinicopathological features and to evaluate gene-gene interaction of these two polymorphisms with risk of developing EOC. Materials. The study was conducted on 70 Epithelial ovarian cancer patients and 70 healthy controls. Genotyping of p53 codon 72 and BAX promoter gene was examined by ASO-PCR and PICA-PCR, respectively. Odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated. Results. We found an increased cancer risk associated with the BAX AA (ORs = 4.1, 95 %, CI = 1.23-13.97) genotype. An increased risk was also associated with the TP53 Pro/Pro (OR = 4.4, 95 % CI = 1.40-13.99) and Arg/Pro genotype (OR = 2.3, 95 % CI = 1.13-4.86). The gene-gene interaction of these polymorphisms increased EOC risk in a more than additive manner (ORs for the presence of both BAX AA and TP53 Arg/Pro genotypes = 8.7, 95 % CI = 1.66-45.48). BAX GG genotype was associated with adverse staging of cancer (P = 0.01). Conclusions. The findings suggest that polymorphism of BAX and TP53 genes may be potential genetic modifiers for developing ovarian cancer (AU)

No disponible

Las nuevas Guías de Prevención y Terapia Antitrombótica del American College of Chest Physicians / The new American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines

No disponible

Nueva alianza entre la Organización Panamericana de la Salud y la Red EQUATOR para mejorar la escritura y publicación de estudios de investigación de salud / New alliance between the Panamerican Health Organization and the EQUATOR Network to improve writing and publication of articles on health outcomes research

No disponible

Comentario crítico de un estudio científico para una publicación / Critical comment to an original article for a publication

Objetivo: Diseñar un formato estandarizado para la elaboración de un comentario crítico sobre un artículo original.Metodología: Se realizó una revisión de las revistas más importantes del mundo iberoamericano y anglosajón que publican este tipo de artículo. Se llevó a cabo una revisión por expertos investigadores en investigación secundaria y se consultó a un panel de profesionales asistenciales para dar estructura y contenido a este formato de publicación.Estructura del Comentario Crítico: Se obtuvo un formato estandarizado con dos partes principales donde destacan, respectivamente: la descripción de la información más relevante del artículo original acorde a la lista de comprobación pertinente, y la evaluación de su calidad metodológica y el nivel de evidencia derivado -Clasificación GRADE-, debatiendo su validez interna y externa.Utilidad esperada: Este formato estandarizado pretende tener un valor pedagógico para el revisor como guía orientativa para facilitar la escritura de este tipo de publicación, y un valor de mejora en la comprensión y transferencia del conocimiento para el lector (AU)

Objectives: To design a standardized format so as to elaborate a critical comment about an original article.Methods: The most popular journals publishing this type of articles were reviewed. Spanish and English journals were included. A review was performed by secundary research experts and, also, an clinical panel was enquired to work out the content and structure of this publication format.Critical comment structure: A standardized format with two main parts was obtained. These parts were: the most relevant information from the original article according to a suitable checklist, and the methodological quality assessment and the evidence level -GRADE Classification-, discussing the internal and external validity.Expected utility: The standarized format aims to have a pedagogical value for the reviewers as an orientative guide for writing this kind of articles, and a value of improvement on reading comprehension and knowledge transference to clinical practice for the reader (AU)

Estudios farmacogenéticos: guía de evaluación para comités éticos de investigación clínica. Fundamentos científicos y marco legal (I) / Pharmacogenetic studies: evaluation guidelines for research ethics committees. Scientific background and legal framework (I)

No disponible