Mapeamento das evidências das revisões sistemáticas do Grupo Anestesiologia da Colaboração Cochrane: entendendo seu valor para a prática clínica

• Ano de defesa: 2014
• Autor(a) principal: Santos Junior, Reinaldo da Silva [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
• Palavras-chave em Português: Anestesiologia - Pesquisa; Meta-analises; Medicina baseada em evidências; Revisão; Estudos transversais; Evidence-based medicine
• Link de acesso: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/113898

Cochrane Collaboration systematic reviews aim to offer updated, objective and consistent information for clinical practice and in order to settle Health policies. However, inconsistence of evidence, as well as inability of raising recommendations is being observed. The aim of this study is to analyze the systematic reviews of Cochrane Collaboration Anesthesia Group and to map its use for clinical practice and scientific research. Methods: A systematic study was conducted, having the analyzes of all systematic reviews of Cochrane Collaboration Anesthesia Group until February, 2014, and then validating which recommendation for clinical practice, based on the author’s conclusions, would be more suitable. Data are shown in percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI). Besides, the number of clinical assays and meta-analyzes per systematic review is demonstrated. Results: 115 systematic reviews were analyzed. There is enough evidence to support recommendation either with or without the need of more studies, as in 32.2% and 2.6% [CI 95% 23.7; 40.7], respectively. Evidences that were opposite to interventions, with or without the need of further studies, consisted in 6.1% [CI 95% 1.7; 10.4] and 1.7% [IC 95% 0; 4.0], respectively. Absence of evidence, with or without the need of other studies, was found in 57.4% [CI 95% 48.4; 66.4] e 0%, respectively. Of all, 95.7% of the reviews suggest that independently of the results, more studies are needed to be made. The average number of clinical assays in the reviews was 19.6, ranging from zero to 737, and the average number of meta-analyzes was 9.3, ranging from zero to 92. Conclusion: Most of the systematic reviews of Cochrane Collaboration Anesthesia Group results in lack of evidence or insufficient evidence in order to recommend interventions for clinical practice, thus highlighting the need of new controlled and randomized clinical studies