Health conditions in land transport workers and climate change. Exploratory systematic review.

A systematic exploratory review was carried out to describe the influence of climate change on the health conditions of land transport drivers, both physical and mental. Additionally, actions for the prevention of these complications are described. For the review, several databases, such as Science Direct, MEDLINE, Springer, PubMed, Redalyc, EBSCO, SciELO, and Scopus, were examined. There was the need to extend the search timeframe from 5 years to 10 years. The studies found consisted mainly of review articles, showing an emphasis on public health and a high frequency of possible physical effects on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. At the mental level, the presence of cases of anxiety, depression and stress were mentioned. As for alternatives for the prevention of these effects, the importance of creating public policies for health promotion and disease prevention was highlighted. It is important to increase scientific production in the field of occupational safety and health and applied studies.

Se realizó una revisión exploratoria sistemática con el fin de describir la influencia del cambio climático en las condiciones de salud de los conductores del transporte terrestre, a nivel físico y mental. Adicionalmente, se describen acciones para la prevención de estas complicaciones. Para la revisión, se examinaron diversas bases de datos, como Science Direct, MEDLINE, Springer, PubMed, Redalyc, EBSCO, SciELO y Scopus. Se identificó la necesidad de aumentar el rango de tiempo de la búsqueda, que pasó de 5 años a 10 años. Los estudios encontrados fueron principalmente de revisión y contaban con un énfasis en salud pública; además, se destacó una alta frecuencia de posibles efectos a nivel físico en los sistemas cardiovascular y respiratorio. A nivel mental, se planteó la presencia de casos de ansiedad, depresión y estrés. En cuanto a alternativas para la prevención de estos efectos, se resaltó la importancia de la creación de políticas públicas de promoción de la salud y prevención de la enfermedad. Es importante incrementar la producción científica en el campo de la seguridad y salud en el trabajo y de estudios aplicados.

Clinical pharmacy key performance indicators for hospital inpatient setting: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Key performance indicators (KPIs) are quantifiable measures used to monitor the quality of health services. Implementation guidelines for clinical pharmacy services (CPS) do not specify KPIs. AIM: To assess the quality of the studies that have developed KPIs for CPS in inpatient hospital settings. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted by searching in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, supplemented with citation analyses and grey literature searches, to retrieve studies addressing the development of KPIs in CPS for hospital inpatients. Exclusions comprised drug- or disease-specific studies and those not written in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish. The Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument assessed methodological quality. Domain scores and an overall score were calculated using an equal-weight principle. KPIs were classified into structure, process, and outcome categories. The protocol is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KS2G3 . RESULTS: We included thirteen studies that collectively developed 225 KPIs. Merely five studies scored over 50% on the AIRE instrument, with domains #3 (scientific evidence) and #4 (formulation and usage) displaying low scores. Among the KPIs, 8.4% were classified as structure, 85.8% as process, and 5.8% as outcome indicators. The overall methodological quality did not exhibit a clear association with a major focus on outcomes. None of the studies provided benchmarking reference values. CONCLUSION: The KPIs formulated for evaluating CPS in hospital settings primarily comprised process measures, predominantly suggested by pharmacists, with inadequate evidence support, lacked piloting or validation, and consequently, were devoid of benchmarking reference values.

What is the most dangerous sexual position that caused the penile fracture? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Penile fracture (PF) affects 1,14 to 10,48 men in every 100.000 men in East Asia, and the primary aetiology is sexual intercourse, but the knowledge regarding the most dangerous sexual position is not well explained. This study compares three sexual positions: man on top position (MTP), woman on top position (WTP), and doggy style position (DSP), leading to PF potential. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of sexual position-related PF in Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane, and PMC Europe was performed. Criteria inclusion was the full text of relevant articles which describ the number of sexual positions. It was analyzed by odds ratio, random model effect, and the OR and 95%CI were calculated. RESULTS: 12 relevant papers involving 490 patients comprised 169 MTP, 120 WTP, 158 DSP, and 43 no intercourse cases. Meta-analysis of all sexual positions was a MTP P= 0,04, WTP P=0,49, and DSP P=0,0005. CONCLUSION: The man-dominant positions (MTP and DSP) were significantly potential for PF, which speculated that when a man is dominant and very excited, intercourse may become highly vigorous and impact trauma. This study found that man's dominant position consists of DSP and the MTP significantly lead to PF.

What is the most dangerous sexual position that caused the penile fracture? A systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT Purpose: Penile fracture (PF) affects 1,14 to 10,48 men in every 100.000 men in East Asia, and the primary aetiology is sexual intercourse, but the knowledge regarding the most dangerous sexual position is not well explained. This study compares three sexual positions: man on top position (MTP), woman on top position (WTP), and doggy style position (DSP), leading to PF potential. Materials and methods: A search of sexual position-related PF in Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane, and PMC Europe was performed. Criteria inclusion was the full text of relevant articles which describ the number of sexual positions. It was analyzed by odds ratio, random model effect, and the OR and 95%CI were calculated. Results: Twelve relevant papers involving 490 patients comprised 169 MTP, 120 WTP, 158 DSP, and 43 no intercourse cases. Meta-analysis of all sexual positions was a MTP P= 0,04, WTP P=0,49, and DSP P=0,0005. Conclusions: The man-dominant positions (MTP and DSP) were significantly potential for PF, which speculated that when a man is dominant and very excited, intercourse may become highly vigorous and impact trauma. This study found that man's dominant position consists of DSP and the MTP significantly lead to PF.

¿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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews: GROOVE tool.

Overlap of primary studies among systematic reviews (SRs) is one of the main methodological challenges when conducting overviews. If not assessed properly, overlapped primary studies may mislead findings, since they may have a major influence either in qualitative analyses or in statistical weight. Moreover, overlapping SRs may represent the existence of duplicated efforts. Matrices of evidence and the calculation of the overall corrected covered area (CCA) are appropriate methods to address this issue, but they seem to be not comprehensive enough. In this article we present Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews (GROOVE), an easy-to-use tool for overview authors. Starting from a matrix of evidence, GROOVE provides the number of included primary studies and SRs included in the matrix; the absolute number of overlapped and non-overlapped primary studies; and an overall CCA assessment. The tool also provides a detailed CCA assessment for each possible pair of SRs (or "nodes"), with a graphical and easy-to-read representation of these results. Additionally, it includes an advanced optional usage, incorporating structural missingness in the matrix. In this article, we show the details about how to use GROOVE, what results it achieves and how the tool obtains these results. GROOVE is intended to improve the overlap assessment by making it easier, faster, and more friendly for both authors and readers. The tool is freely available at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/U2MS4 and https://es.cochrane.org/es/groovetool.

Incontinence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a reverse systematic review.

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.

Nonrestorative treatment of initial caries lesion in primary teeth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the best available approach to avoid initial caries lesions progression in primary teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Search was performed in MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and CENTRAL databases until March 2021. Studies compared treatment options to avoid the initial caries lesion progression with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. Network meta-analyses were conducted considering the non-progression of caries lesions as an outcome. RESULTS: Potentially eligible studies were screened (n = 2820) and eleven were included. Six studies evaluated the use of fluoride varnish, resin infiltration, sealing, and toothbrushing/flossing on proximal initial caries lesions. When considering occlusal surfaces, only two studies evaluating the ozone gas, fluoride varnish, resin infiltration, and sealants were included. For buccal/lingual surfaces, three studies evaluating toothbrushing, CPP-ACP paste, fluoride varnish, and resin infiltration were included. For all types of surfaces, the resin infiltration showed the best probability to avoid the progression of initial caries lesions. CONCLUSION: The limited number of included studies, most with a high risk of bias and lack of hard outcomes, such as frank cavitation, makes it not feasible to recommend a specific management approach for initial caries lesion control in primary teeth with a high certainty of evidence. PROSPERO: #CRD42016037781.