33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas em periódicos de psicologia brasileiros Translated title: Methodological quality of systematic reviews in brazilian psychology journals quality of systematic reviews in psychology

      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

          Buscou-se avaliar a qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas (RS) publicadas em periódicos brasileiros de psicologia. Foi conduzida uma RS nas bases PePSIC e SciELO, usando as palavras-chave: "revisão" e "sistemática". Foram identificados e analisados 33 artigos através do instrumento Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). A pontuação média das revisões foi 5,39 (em um escore que podia variar de 0 a 11). Houve diferença de qualidade entre as RS publicadas no SciELO e as que o foram no PePSIC, mas não foi observada diferença conforme o estrato do periódico, segundo o Qualis CAPES. Além disso, não verificou-se incremento na qualidade das publicações de 2001 a 2012. Sugere-se adoção de diretrizes por parte dos periódicos e dos autores de forma a melhorar a qualidade das RS no Brasil.

          Translated abstract

          The aim of this study is to measure the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR) published in Brazilian psychology journals. It was conducted a SR in SciELO and PePSIC databases, using "review" and "systematic" as keywords. 33 articles were identified and analyzed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). The mean value of quality was 5.39 (SD = 1.91) on a scale ranging from 0 to 11. Using criteria of Qualis CAPES, significant differences were found in the quality of RS published in SciELO compared to those published in PePSIC, but not according to the journal extract. No increase in quality was observed from 2001 to 2012. The adoption of guidelines for publication of SR is suggested, in order to improve their quality in Brazil.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

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

          Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

          A Akobeng (2005)
          This review covers the basic principles of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The problems associated with traditional narrative reviews are discussed, as is the role of systematic reviews in limiting bias associated with the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of studies addressing specific clinical questions. Important issues that need to be considered when appraising a systematic review or meta-analysis are outlined, and some of the terms used in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses--such as odds ratio, relative risk, confidence interval, and the forest plot--are introduced.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Estudos de revisão sistemática: um guia para síntese criteriosa da evidência científica

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

              Análise da apresentação textual de revisões sistemáticas em fisioterapia publicadas em idioma português

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                ptp
                Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa
                Psic.: Teor. e Pesq.
                Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasília (Brasília )
                1806-3446
                March 2014
                : 30
                : 1
                : 97-104
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Brazil
                Article
                S0102-37722014000100012
                10.1590/S0102-37722014000100012
                c8c7a605-a26e-42fe-b8c8-2c071b9b2e20

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Self URI (journal page): http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0102-3772&lng=en
                Categories
                PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                systematic review,methodology,quality,revisão sistemática,metodologia,psicologia

                Comments

                Comment on this article