Evaluación de una revisión sistemática
Las revisiones sistemáticas desempeñan un papel crucial en las prácticas basadas en la evidencia, ya que consolidan los hallazgos de la investigación para fundamentar la toma de decisiones. Sin embargo, es esencial evaluar la calidad de las revisiones sistemáticas para evitar conclusiones sesgadas o inexactas.
En Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability (2023) explica el proceso de evaluación para la identificación de posibles fuentes de sesgo y limitaciones de una revisión sistemática de la literatura. Según los autores, las revisiones sistemáticas deben considerar factores cruciales como la corrección de sesgos, la declaración de conflictos de intereses y el reconocimiento de las limitaciones metodológicas y de la revisión.
Para la evluación de la calidad de la revisión sistemática, los autores recomiendan el empleo de Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP).
There are 10 items of CASP as follows:
Item 1 Did the review address a clearly focused question?
Item 2 Did the authors search for the appropriate papers?
Item 3 Do you think all the important, relevant studies were included?
Item 4 Did the authors of the review assess the quality of the research they incorporated in sufficient detail?
Item 5 Was it acceptable to combine the review's findings, if such is what happened?
Item 6 What are the review's general findings?
Item 7 How precise are the findings?
Item 8 Can the results be applied to the local population?
Item 9 Were all potential outcomes considered?
Item 10 Do the costs and harms outweigh the benefits?
Rating the level of overall satisfaction with the review's findings:
- High: no, or just one non-critical flaw the systematic review accurately and thoroughly summarizes the findings of all available studies and deals with the relevant subject.
- Moderate: the systematic review has several non-critical flaws*, but none are significant. It might give a reliable summary of the outcomes of the available studies that were considered for the evaluation.
- Low: the review contains one critical flaw and may not provide an accurate and thorough evaluation of the research that is currently available and addresses the relevant subject.
- Critically Low With or without non-critical problems, the review has more than one critical flaw and cannot be relied upon to give an accurate and thorough account of the available research.
