Universidade Federal do Ceará
Grupo de Atenção Integral e Pesquisa em Acupuntura e Medicina Tradicional Chinesa – GAIPA UFC

ESTUDO DE REVISÃO DA LITERATURA

Revisão Narrativa

• Rother ET. Revisão sistemática X revisão narrativa. Acta paul enferm. 2007;20:v–vi. <https://www.scielo.br/j/ape/a/z7zZ4Z4GwYV6FR7S9FHTByr/>.
• Green BN et al. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006 Fall; 5(3): 101–117. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2647067/>.

Revisão Sistemática / Metanálise

São estudos que analisam e/ou sintetizam a literatura a partir da definição de um problema, intervenção, comparação, desfecho e tempo de interesse.

• Sampaio RF, Mancini MC. Estudos de revisão sistemática: um guia para síntese criteriosa da evidência científica. Braz J Phys Ther. 2007; 11 (1) <https://www.scielo.br/j/rbfis/a/79nG9Vk3syHhnSgY7VsB6jG/?lang=pt>.
• Mancini MC et al. Tutorial para elaboração de revisões sistemáticas para o Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy (BJPT). Braz J Phys Ther. 2014; 18 (6) <https://www.scielo.br/j/rbfis/a/8xRf3hftfLFhWnts5gBzs6Q/?lang=pt>.
• Teixeira EP et al. Guia para revisão sistemática de estudos observacionais. Texto contexto – enferm. 2024;33:e20230221. <https://www.scielo.br/j/tce/a/876BLxXM3XxsXZTwGXSKCKM/?lang=pt>.
• Liu JP. GRADE Methods in traditional medicine. Integr Med Res. 2022 Jun;11(2):100836. <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35141135/>.
• CANTO, Graziela de Luca; STEFANI, Cristine Miron; MASSIGNAN, Carla (org.). Risco de viés em revisões sistemáticas: guia prático. Florianópolis: Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Baseadas em Evidências – COBE UFSC, 2021.  <https://guiariscodeviescobe.paginas.ufsc.br/como-citar-o-guia-pratico/>.
• Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, Bezemer PD. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002 Jul 3;2:9. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC117243/>.

Network meta-analysis

• Roever L, Biondi-Zoccai G. Metanálise de Rede para Sintetizar Evidências para a Tomada de Decisão na Pesquisa Cardiovascular. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2016;106:333–7. <https://www.scielo.br/j/abc/a/KQzxJr9hqX9MjqpNmFtYQvh/?lang=pt>.

Webaulas

• • Meta-análise de eficácia de intervenção: Passo a passo <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy8RTo80pmw>.

Comentários:

• The discrepancies between these two guidelines are likely a result of different methodological approaches, including different search strategies and quality assessment of the identified evidence. (PMID: 34404258).
• This work is structured in accordance with the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) framework. (PMID: 34404258).
• The multidisciplinary working group included members appointed by professional organizations and scientific societies who provided input and guidance throughout the process. The individuals involved. (PMID: 34404258).
• The final product was peer-reviewed by two external reviewers and in a public hearing. Potential conflicts of interests from any of the individuals involved were declared and made publicly available. (PMID: 34404258).
• PICO questions were formulated to investigate the effect of five specific, widely used nonpharmacological interventions for patients diagnosed with migraine. (PMID: 34404258).