Identificación y descripción epidemiológica de artículos de revisión de efectos adversos en la atención sanitaria publicados en idioma español
Archivos
Fecha
2016
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
Resumen
Descripción
Antecedentes: Las revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura científica constituyen una importante fuente
de evidencia para la toma de decisiones en medicina particularmente al momento de contemplar
posibles efectos adversos (EA) de las intervenciones. Estudios anteriores han caracterizado epidemiológicamente
artículos de revisión publicados sin utilizar restricción alguna de idioma o limitándose al
inglés, mientras que no son abundantes los estudios de revisiones escritos en español.
Objetivos: Identificar artículos de revisión de efectos adversos en la atención sanitaria publicados en
idioma español y describirlos epidemiológicamente.
Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda en MEDLINE, BVS y DARE utilizando estrategias que incluían
términos afines a “efecto adverso” y “revisión”, para el período 2010-2014 e idioma español. De los
artículos recuperados se registraron características relevantes, calcularon frecuencias y se analizó
homogeneidad.
Resultados: Se recuperaron 62 revisiones narrativas (RN) y 29 revisiones sistemáticas/metaanálisis
(RS/MA). La palabra “Revisión” en el título fue empleada en 16,1% de RN y en 89,6% de RS/MA
(p<0,0001). En el 76,9% de las revisiones, estudiar los EA no fue el principal objetivo y en el 68,1%
la intervención fue farmacológica. El número de autores fue mayor en las RS/MA que en las RN
(p=0,0371).
Discusión: Se considera insuficiente el número de revisiones de EA recuperados en español. Dado que
las RS/MA, al estar elaboradas con rigor metodológico, aportan evidencia confiable para la toma de
decisiones en la práctica clínica, su escaso número no favorece la actualización de los profesionales
de habla hispana.
Background: Systematic reviews of the scientific literature are an important source of evidence for decision-making in medicine particularly when considering possible adverse effects (AEs) caused by interventions. Previous studies have epidemiologically characterized review articles without using any language restriction, while not so many are written in Spanish. Objectives: To identify review articles of adverse effects in health care published in Spanish language and to describe them epidemiologically. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, DARE and BVS using different strategies, restricting the date to the period 2010-2014 and Spanish language. Relevant characteristics of the retrieved articles were registered. The data was analyzed descriptively, including frequencies and homogeneity. Results: 62 narrative reviews (NR) and 29 systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) were recovered. The number of authors was higher in the SR/MA than in the NR (p=0.0371); in 76.9% of the revisions AE was not the main objective and 68.1% corresponded to pharmacological intervention. The word "review" in the title was used in 16.1% of NRs and 89.6% of SR/MA (p<0.0001). Discussion: The number of reviews of AE recovered in Spanish is considered insufficient. Since the SR/ MA has methodological rigor, it provides reliable evidence for decision-making in clinical practice. Their small number does not contribute to the updating of Spanish-speaking professionals.
Background: Systematic reviews of the scientific literature are an important source of evidence for decision-making in medicine particularly when considering possible adverse effects (AEs) caused by interventions. Previous studies have epidemiologically characterized review articles without using any language restriction, while not so many are written in Spanish. Objectives: To identify review articles of adverse effects in health care published in Spanish language and to describe them epidemiologically. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, DARE and BVS using different strategies, restricting the date to the period 2010-2014 and Spanish language. Relevant characteristics of the retrieved articles were registered. The data was analyzed descriptively, including frequencies and homogeneity. Results: 62 narrative reviews (NR) and 29 systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) were recovered. The number of authors was higher in the SR/MA than in the NR (p=0.0371); in 76.9% of the revisions AE was not the main objective and 68.1% corresponded to pharmacological intervention. The word "review" in the title was used in 16.1% of NRs and 89.6% of SR/MA (p<0.0001). Discussion: The number of reviews of AE recovered in Spanish is considered insufficient. Since the SR/ MA has methodological rigor, it provides reliable evidence for decision-making in clinical practice. Their small number does not contribute to the updating of Spanish-speaking professionals.
Palabras clave
Efectos Adversos, Revisión, revisión Sistemática, Metaanálisis, Español