Proceeding Brapci-Revistas
Martha Silvia Martínez-Silveira
Juan Ignácio Calcagno
Cícera Henrique da Silva
Ana Maria Fiscina Vaz Sampaio
Adelvani de Araújo Boa Morte

[erro abnt]

References

  • AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. JAMA Instructions for authors. Disponível em: lt.,http://jama.jamanetwork.com/public/instructionsForAuthors.aspxgt.,. Acesso em: 26 jun. 2012.
  • ARMSTRONG, R. et al. Version 2. Melbourne: University, 2007. Disponível em: lt.,http://ph.cochrane.org/sites/ph.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Guidelines%20HP_PH%20reviews.pdfgt.,. Acesso em: 8 jul. 2012.
  • BERO, L. A.., JADAD, A. R. How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making. Annals of Internal Medicine, v. 127, n. 1, p. 37-42, 1997.
  • BMJ GROUP. BMJ resources for authors: article requirements. Disponível em: lt.,http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-submission/articlerequirementsgt.,. Acesso em: 26 jun. 2012.
  • CALLE J. L. de la et al. Infusión espinal: valoración crítica de las revisiones sistemáticas publicadas con las herramientas AMSTAR, CASP y OQAQ. Revista de la Sociedad Española de Dolor, v. 18, n. 4, p. 235-240, 2011.
  • CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH [homepage]. Disponível em: lt.,http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/homegt.,. Acesso em: 29 jun. 2012.
  • CHALMER, I.., GLASZIOU, P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet, v. 374, n. 9683, p. 86-89, 2009.
  • CHALMER, I.., HEDGES, L. V.., COOPER, H. A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Profissions, v. 25, n. 1, p. 12-37, 2002.
  • COOK, D. J.., MULROW, C. D.., HAYNES, R. B. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, v. 126, n. 5, p. 376-376, 1997.
  • DELANEY, A. et al. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews: an independent appraisal. Critical Care Medicine, v. 35, n. 2, Feb, p. 589-594, 2007.
  • DIXON-WOOD, M. et al. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Quality and Safety in Health Care, v. 13, n. 3, p. 223-225, 2004.
  • EQUATOR NETWORK. Enhancing the quality of transparency of health reserch. Disponível em: lt., http://www.equator-network.org/gt.,. Acsso em: 28 maio 2012.
  • HIGGINS, J. P. T. et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. (updated March 2011). Disponível em: lt.,http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook/ gt.,. Acesso em: 5 jul. 2012.
  • INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF MEDICAL JOURNAL EDITORS. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publications. Disponível em: lt., http://www.icmje.org/gt.,. Acesso em: 10 jun. 2012.
  • KELLY, Karen D. Et al. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Annals of Emergency Medicine, v. 38, n. 5, p. 518-526, 2011.
  • MARTEL, G. et al. The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal câncer. Systematic Reviews, v. 1, n. 14, p. 1-17, 2012.
  • MEERPOHL, Joerg J. et al. Scientific value of systematic reviews: surveys of editors of core clinical journals. PLos One, v. 7, n. 5, p. e35732, 2012.
  • MOHER, D. et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, v. 151, n. 4, 264-269, 2011.
  • OXMAN, A. D.., GUYATT, G. H. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v. 44, p. 121-1278, 1991.
  • SACKS, H. et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled ttrials. New England Journal of Medicine, v. 316, n. 8, p. 450-455, 1987.
  • SEQUEIRA-BYRON, Patrick et al. An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS). Journal of Applied Oral Science, v. 19, n. 5, p. 440=447, 2011.
  • SHEA, Beverley et al. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Evaluation and the Health Profissions, v. 25, n. 1, p. 116-129, 2002.
  • SHEA, Beverley et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLos One, v. 2, n. 12, p. e1350, 2007.
  • SHEA, Beverley et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v. 62, n. 10, p. 1013-1020, 2009.
  • THELANCET.COM. The Lancet: information for authors. Disponível em: lt.,http://www.thelancet.com/lancet-information-for-authorsgt.,. Acesso em: 26 jun. 2012.
  • TORLONI, Maria Regina., RIERA, Rachel. Design and level of evidence of studies published in two Brazilian medical journals recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science database. São Paulo Medical Journal, v. 128, n. 4, p. 202-205, 2010.
NLP0.29
Visto 16 vezes
sem referências