El documento técnico de efectividad y seguridad para aplicaciones médicas del cannabis y productos terminados derivados del cannabis no es una revisión sistemática

Publicado

2023-07-01

The technical paper on efficacy and safety of the medical use of cannabis and cannabis-derived finished products is not a systematic review

El documento técnico de efectividad y seguridad para aplicaciones médicas del cannabis y productos terminados derivados del cannabis no es una revisión sistemática

Palabras clave:

Systematic Reviews as Topic, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Epidemiologic (en)
Revisión Sistemática como Asunto, Literatura de revisión como Asunto, Metaanálisis como asunto, Sesgo (Epidemiología) (es)

Descargas

Autores/as

Gustavo Ortega-Mora Universidad del Rosario - Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud - Bogotá D.C. - Colombia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4859-6889

Resumen (en)
Resumen (es)

I am writing to you regarding the recent publication (December 2022) by the Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud (Institute for Health Technology Assessment - IETS by its acronym in Spanish) of the Documento técnico para el desarrollo de una Revisión Sistemática de Literatura de Efectividad y Seguridad de grupo para aplicaciones médicas de cannabis y productos terminados derivados del cannabis (Technical paper for the development of a group systematic literature review on efficacy and safety of the medical use of cannabis and cannabis-derived finished products).¹ Said technical document refers to the development of a systematic review (SR); however, according to what is reported therein, it is evident that it is a search for SRs,1 so it should be better considered as a review of reviews.^2,3

Le dirijo la presente carta en relación con la reciente publicación (diciembre de 2022) por parte del Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud (IETS) del “Documento técnico para el desarrollo de una Revisión Sistemática de Literatura de Efectividad y Seguridad de grupo para aplicaciones médicas de cannabis y productos terminados derivados del cannabis”.¹ En dicho documento técnico se hace referencia a la realización de una revisión sistemática (RS); sin embargo, según lo informado en el mismo, lo que se evidencia es que es una búsqueda de RS, por lo que debería considerarse mejor como una revisión de revisiones.^2,3

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Colombia. Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud (IETS). Documento técnico para el desarrollo de una Revisión Sistemática de Literatura de Efectividad y Seguridad de grupo para aplicaciones médicas de cannabis y productos terminados derivados del cannabis. Bogotá D.C.: IETS; 2022 [cited 2023 Nov 17]. Available from: https://bit.ly/3MOdL2Y.

Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, Estcourt L, Brunton G. An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):39. https://doi.org/gfv7cz.

Papatheodorou SI, Evangelou E. Umbrella Reviews: What They Are and Why We Need Them. Methods Mol Biol. 2022;2345:135-46. https://doi.org/gq6t46.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91-108. https://doi.org/ftbpbr.

Cooper H, Koenka AC. The overview of reviews: unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. Am Psychol. 2012;67(6):446-62. https://doi.org/f4bmsr.

Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):132-40. https://doi.org/gfkpmq.

Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):15. https://doi.org/db7vmf.

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Featherstone R, Hartling L. What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):190. https://doi.org/ghq7t4.

Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2009;181(8):488-93. https://doi.org/d7rpht.

Pieper D, Buechter R, Li L, Prediger B, Eikermann M. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(5):574-83. https://doi.org/gp57kz.

Biondi-Zoccai G, Lotrionte M, Landoni G, Modena MG. The rough guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses. HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth. 2011;3(3):161-73.

Hartling L, Chisholm A, Thomson D, Dryden DM. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49667. https://doi.org/bmtg.

Catalá-López F, Hutton B, Núñez-Beltrán A, Page MJ, Ridao M, Macías-Saint-Gerons D, et al. The pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: A systematic review with network meta-analyses of randomised trials. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0180355. https://doi.org/gbm48q.

Ballard M, Montgomery P. Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):92-108. https://doi.org/f9ktfc.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/gfxrks.

Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):231. https://doi.org/gg898p.

Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:16. https://doi.org/dhzzhh.

Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123(3):A12-3.

Da Costa Santos CM, de Mattos Pimenta CA, Nobre MR. The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2007;15(3):508-11. https://doi.org/b8m5gd.

Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2006. https://doi.org/fwfpfx.

Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K, Booth A. Chapter 20: Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 [cited 2023 Nov 17]. Available from: https://bit.ly/3QIxylI.

O’Connor AM, Tsafnat G, Gilbert SB, Thayer KA, Wolfe MS. Moving toward the automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the second meeting of International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):3. https://doi.org/ghf9x4.

Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9-14. https://doi.org/gd5493.

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45. https://doi.org/c73jf5.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. https://doi.org/dh2cj4.

Farace D, Schöpfel J, esditors. Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur; 2010.