Keywords
applied research
methodology
physical education
sports science
How to Cite
Abstract
Introduction: The main characteristic of the systematic review (SR) is to verify in the most diverse areas of knowledge what is described in the literature on a given theme, synthesizing it in a single work. Its elaboration requires practice, study and knowledge of some particularities.
Objective: To present methodological considerations regarding the planning and conduction of SR studies, seeking to identify the organization of an ordered sequence and other aspects involved in its development.
Methods: This is a qualitative methodological analysis using bibliographic research.
Results: Seven sequential stages of the process of elaboration of an SR were identified: 1) Research question; 2) Review protocol; 3) Systematic search; 4) Selection of studies; 5) Reading and evaluation of methodological quality or risk of bias in the studies; 6) Synthesis and analysis; and 7) Writing the report, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and future publication.
Conclusion: The present study represents a complete methodological guide for conducting high-quality SR studies.
References
Abdul NS, Kumari M, Shenoy M, Shivakumar GC, Herford AS, Cicciù M, et al. Telemedicine in the diagnosis and management of temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2023;50(11): 1340–1347. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13546.
Donato H, Donato M. [Stages for Undertaking a Systematic Review]. Acta Medica Portuguesa. 2019;32(3): 227–235. https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.11923.
De-la-Torre-Ugarte-Guanilo MC, Takahashi RF, Bertolozzi MR. Systematic review: general notions. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP. 2011;45: 1260–1266. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-62342011000500033.
Santos CM da C, Pimenta CA de M, Nobre MRC. A estratégia PICO para a construção da pergunta de pesquisa e busca de evidências. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. 2007;15: 508–511. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692007000300023.
Organização Mundial da Saúde, Organização Oan-Americana de Saúde. DeCS – Descritores em Ciências da Saúde. Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde. https://decs.bvsalud.org/ [Accessed 13th September 2024].
PubMed. PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ [Accessed 20th September 2024].
SciELO - Brasil. https://www.scielo.br/ [Accessed 20th September 2024].
Web of Science platform. Clarivate. https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/webofscience-platform/ [Accessed 20th September 2024].
MEDLINE. U.S. National Library of Medicine; https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_home.html [Accessed 20th September 2024].
Embase. https://www.embase.com/landing?status=grey [Accessed 20th September 2024].
Cochrane Reviews | Cochrane Library. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/ [Accessed 20th September 2024].
SPORTDiscus | EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/pt/produtos/bases-de-dados/sportdiscus [Accessed 20th September 2024].
PEDro. Physiotherapy Evidence Database. https://pedro.org.au/portuguese/, https://pedro.org.au/portuguese/ [Accessed 20th September 2024].
PROSPERO - International prospective register of systematic reviews. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ [Accessed 13th September 2024].
JBI EBP Database | JBI. https://jbi.global/jbi-ebp-database [Accessed 20th September 2024].
Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research. 2014;14(1): 579. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0.
Tacconelli E. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2010;10(4): 226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70065-7.
Amir-Behghadami M, Janati A. Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emergency medicine journal: EMJ. 2020;37(6): 387. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-209567.
Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.. 6.5. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2024. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current [Accessed 13th September 2024].
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1): 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.
Rayyan – Intelligent Systematic Review. https://www.rayyan.ai/ [Accessed 22nd August 2024].
Centre for Statistics in Medicine. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews | EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/ [Accessed 23rd September 2024].
Oñate-Ocaña LF, Ochoa-Carrillo FJ. Sistema GRADE para clasificar nivel de evidencia y grado de las recomendaciones para la elaboración de guías de buena práctica clínica. Cir. & cir. 2009; 417–419.
Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1998;51(12): 1235–1241. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00131-0.
Burns MI, Miller RM. The effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in the treatment of pharyngeal dysphagia: a systematic review. Journal of Medical Speech - Language Pathology. 2011;19(1): 13–25.
Carvalho APV de, Silva V, Grande AJ. Avaliação do risco de viés de ensaios clínicos randomizados pela ferramenta da colaboração Cochrane. Diagn. tratamento. 2013; http://files.bvs.br/upload/S/1413-9979/2013/v18n1/a3444.pdf
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2016;355: i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919.
Castro AA. Revisão Sistemática: Análise e Apresentação dos Resultados - Capítulo 9. In: Elaboração e Apresentação de Comunicação Científica. São Paulo: Metodologia.org; 2015. p. 82–96. http://www.usinadepesquisa.com/metodologia/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/lv5_rsl09.pdf [Accessed 13th September 2024].
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública. 2022;46: e112. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2022.112.
Martimbianco ALC. How to prepare a systematic review and meta-analysis: the methodological approach. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física. 2021;27: e10200227. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-657420210000227.
Brasil S de C Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Diretrizes metodológicas: sistema GRADE: manual de graduação da qualidade da evidência e força de recomendação para tomada de decisão em saúde. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2014. https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/diretrizes_metodologicas_sistema_grade.pdf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Physical Education