Como minimizar vieses em revisões sistemáticas de estudos observacionais
How to avoid bias in systematic reviews of observational studies
Carlos Podalirio Borges de Almeida; Bárbara Niegia Garcia de Goulart
Resumo
Embora as revisões sistemáticas tenham inúmeras vantagens, eles são vulneráveis a vieses que podem mascarar os verdadeiros resultados do estudo e, portanto, devem ser interpretados com cautela. A proposta deste artigo é revisar criticamente a literatura acerca das revisões sistemáticas de estudos observacionais, enfatizando os erros que podem afetar este tipo de desenho de estudo e as possíveis estratégias para superar esses erros. Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa da literatura. A pesquisa bibliográfica foi conduzida nas bases de dados: States National Library of Medicine, Scientific Electronic Library Online, e Google Scholar. Para a busca em bases de dados foram utilizados os descritores: revisão, viés (epidemiologia) e estudos observacionais como assunto. Também foram consultados livros e documentos com relevância para o tema. A coleta dos dados foi realizada entre junho e julho de 2016. Os erros mais conhecidos, presentes no delineamento de revisões sistemáticas, foram os relacionados com a seleção e publicação. Embora este tipo de estudo esteja sujeito a possíveis erros, as medidas preventivas postas em prática durante o planejamento de revisões sistemáticas e até mesmo durante e após a sua execução podem ajudar a garantir o rigor científico. Esta revisão da literatura pode servir como um instrumento importante para o desenvolvimento e interpretação de revisões sistemáticas de estudos observacionais.
Palavras-chave
Abstract
Although systematic reviews have numerous advantages, they are vulnerable to biases that can mask the true results of the study and therefore should be interpreted with caution. This article aims at critically reviewing the literature about systematic reviews of observational studies, emphasizing the errors that can affect this type of study design and possible strategies to overcome these errors. This is an integrative literature review whose search was conducted in the databases States National Library of Medicine, Scientific Electronic Library Online and Google Scholar. The following descriptors were used: review, bias (epidemiology) and observational studies as the subject, including relevant books and documents which were consulted. Data collection was conducted between June and July 2016. The most known errors present in the design of systematic reviews were those related to the selection and publication. Although this type of study is subject to possible errors, preventive measures used during the planning of systematic reviews and even during and after their implementation can help ensure scientific rigor. This literature can serve as an important tool for the development and interpretation of systematic reviews of observational studies.
Keywords
Referências
1. Linde K, Willich SN. How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(1):17-22.
2. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: Wiley. 2008.
3. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002;359(9306):614-8.
4. Millard LA, Flach PA, Higgins JP. Machine learning to assist risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(1):266-77.
5. Savovic J, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Turner L, Altman DG, Moher D et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation. Syst Rev. 2014;3:37.
6. Armijo-Olivo S, Ospina M, da Costa BR, Egger M, Saltaji H, Fuentes J et al. Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96920.
7. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs SJ et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4012.
8. Hartling L, Bond K, Vandermeer B, Seida J, Dryden DM, Rowe BH. Applying the risk of bias tool in a systematic review of combination long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. PLoS One. 2011;6(2):e17242.
9. Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A, Vandermeer B, Santaguida PL, Ansari M et al. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):973-81.
10. Lensen S, Farquhar C, Jordon V. Risk of bias: are judgements consistent between reviews? Cochrane Database Syst Rev Suppl. 2014;1:30.
11. Akobeng AK. Understanding randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):840-4.
12. Bradley L, Law M. Systematically reviewing the evidence. In: Law M, McDermid J. Evidence-based rehabilitation: a guide to practice. 3.ed. Thorofare (NJ): SLACK Inc. 2002. p. 143-59.
13. Sampaio RF, Mancini MC. Estudos de Revisão Sistemática: Um Guia para Síntese Criteriosa da Evidência Científica. Rev.bras.fisioter. 2007;11(1):83-9.
14. Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 11 - Sources of bias in systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. Hong Kong Med J. 2013;19(2):156-8.
15. Fourth International Conference on Grey Literature: New Frontiers in Grey Literature. GreyNet, Grey Literature Network Service, Washington DC, USA. 1999. p.4-5.
16. Pereira GP, Galvão TF. Heterogeneidade e viés de publicação em revisões sistemáticas. Epidemiol.Serv.Saúde. 2014;23(2):775-8.
17. Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 7 - Appraising a study on diagnosis. Hong Kong Med J. 2012;18:325-6.
18. Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 8—Appraising a study on therapy. Hong Kong Med. 2012;18:19-20.
19. Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 9 - Appraising a study on prognosis. Hong Kong Med J. 2012;18:507-8.
20. Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 10—Appraising a study on risk factors or aetiology. Hong Kong Med J. 2013;19:50-1.
21. Yu IT, Tse SL. Clinical Epidemiology Workshop 3—Sources of bias in case series, patient cohorts, and randomised controlled. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17:478-9.
Submetido em:
25/01/2017
Aceito em:
21/06/2017
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email