Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis

A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care

“…Narrative reviews are guided mainly by the experience and specific interests of the investigators. The “Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome” (PICO) and the “Population, Exposure, Comparator and Outcome” (PECO) checklists help focus the search or evidence within clinical investigations and trials, and a substitution of terms provides the “Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, and Evaluation” (SPICE) guide when a social context to the search is required . The “Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies” (PRESS) emphasise the comprehensiveness of a search by attending to MeSH terms and search filters; although with difficulty when terms and filters are poorly developed or misleading, as for reviews of qualitative and observational studies .…”

“…Narrative reviews are guided mainly by the experience and specific interests of the investigators. The "Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome" (PICO) and the "Population, Exposure, Comparator and Outcome" (PECO) checklists help focus the search or evidence within clinical investigations and trials, 9 and a substitution of terms provides the "Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, and Evaluation" (SPICE) guide when a social context to the search is required. 73 The "Peer Review of Electronic Search…”

“…However, more non‐systematic than systematic reviews were published by the highest ranked biomedical journals, such as the N Engl J Med , the Lancet , the J Am Med Assoc , the Br Med J and the Ann Intern Med , published between 2015/16 . This raises questions about the quality of the evidence published in influential journals, particularly if the findings of randomised or even non‐randomised controlled trials are the preferred standard of clinical evidence as suggested by the Cochrane Collaboration . Apparently, prestigious journals still value the opinions of well‐informed experts, in addition to the results of clinical trials and the practical interpretations of people who experience illness and participate in health care, to inform policy and guide clinical practice …”

Artículos de Revisión

“…Se enfocan en una pregunta específica (a veces más de una) que se plantea antes de iniciar la revisión y que se responde en forma estructurada, cumpliendo condiciones definidas [4][5][6][7][9][10][11] A estas condiciones las suceden el análisis crítico de los estudios primarios seleccionados, extrayendo los datos que se utilizarán para la presentación de resultados de la revisión, terminando con la interpretación correspondiente, que incluye el reconocimiento de las fortalezas y debilidades atribuibles a la revisión sistemática que se ofrece a los lectores.…”

“…El texto de este manuscrito se basa en una bibliografía seleccionada por el autor con artículos de fácil ac-ceso para los lectores [2][3][4][5][6][7] , incluyendo una guía para realizar búsquedas en PubMed 8 . Quienes deseen profundizar en el tema dispondrán también de referencias a otras publicaciones especializadas [9][10][11] .…”