14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Guidelines for conducting and publishing systematic reviews in Psychology Translated title: Diretrizes para condução e publicação de revisões sistemáticas em Psicologia

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract The systematic review refers to the literature review guided by scientific methods explicitly intended to reduce bias, resulting in a synthesis of all relevant evidence for a given issue. In Brazil, specifically in Psychology, systematic review is found in the literature; however, the available studies do not always reflect the gold standard or what is expected in terms of typical systematic review procedures. The present study is structured in the form of a didactic guide, organized in topics, which should be typically contemplated in an systematic review in Psychology. The information that must be contained in each of these topics is indicated, including which procedures should be performed in the typical steps of the development of an systematic review. The present publication intends to increase the interest and investment of researchers in systematic review, providing them with information to improve the quality of systematic review in the area of Psychology in Brazil.

          Translated abstract

          Resumo A revisão sistemática refere-se à revisão de literatura guiada por métodos científicos explicitamente voltados para redução de vieses, resultando em uma síntese de toda evidência relevante para uma área. No Brasil, especificamente na Psicologia, revisões sistemáticas são encontradas na literatura; entretanto, os estudos disponíveis nem sempre refletem o padrão ouro ou o que é esperado em relação a tais procedimentos. Nesse sentido, este estudo é estruturado na forma de guia didático e organizado em tópicos, apresentando o que deve ser contemplado em revisões sistemáticas na área de Psicologia. A informação que deve ser contida em cada tópico é apresentada, incluindo notas breves acerca de quais procedimentos devem ser realizados em uma revisão sistemática. A presente publicação intenciona aumentar o interesse e investimento de pesquisadores em relação à matéria, fornecendo informações para melhoria da qualidade das revisões sistemáticas na área da Psicologia no Brasil.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews

            Background Most meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of power available in studies within meta-analyses published in Cochrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results. Methods and Findings For 14,886 meta-analyses of binary outcomes from 1,991 Cochrane reviews, we calculated power per study within each meta-analysis. We defined adequate power as ≥50% power to detect a 30% relative risk reduction. In a subset of 1,107 meta-analyses including 5 or more studies with at least two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies. In 10,492 (70%) of 14,886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two adequately powered studies. 34% of the meta-analyses themselves were adequately powered. The median of summary relative risks was 0.75 across all meta-analyses (inter-quartile range 0.55 to 0.89). In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%, P<0.0001) than in adequately powered studies, in meta-analyses of controlled pharmacological trials; and 12% lower (95% CI 7% to 17%, P<0.0001) in meta-analyses of controlled non-pharmacological trials. The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a median of 11% (inter-quartile range −1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study heterogeneity tended to decrease. Conclusions When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information, and could be left out if a rapid review of the evidence is required. However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidence in most Cochrane reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement

              Prediction models are developed to aid health-care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health-care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                epc
                Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas)
                Estud. psicol. (Campinas)
                PUC-Campinas (Campinas, SP, Brazil )
                0103-166X
                2019
                : 36
                : e180144
                Affiliations
                [02] Ribeirão Preto orgnameUniversidade de São Paulo orgdiv1Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto orgdiv2Departamento de Psicologia Brazil
                [01] Campinas São Paulo orgnameUniversidade São Francisco orgdiv1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia Brazil
                Article
                S0103-166X2019000101101
                10.1590/1982-0275201936e180144
                271362e8-108a-47aa-99ca-dc76da71ae21

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 27 November 2018
                : 04 October 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 25, Pages: 0
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Categories
                Theory and Methods in Psychology

                Metanálise,Revisão de literatura,Investigation,Review literature,Investigação,Projetos de pesquisa,Research design,Meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article