Examinando por Autor "Vargas-Peirano, Manuel"

Mostrando 1 - 3 de 3
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor in diabetic macular oedema: scoping review of clinical practice guidelines recommendations
    (Bmj, 2021) Vargas-Peirano, Manuel; Verdejo, Catalina; Vergara-Merino, Laura; Loézar, Cristóbal; Hoehmann, Martín; Pérez-Bracchiglione, Javier
    Background Diabetic macular oedema (DME) is a, worldwide major cause of low vision and blindness. Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) constitutes an effective treatment. linical practice guidelines (CPGs) are synthesis documents that seek to improve patient care. Objectives To identify CPGs that make anti-VEGF recommendations for DME and to assess their reporting quality and their considerations when making recommendations. Eligibility criteria CPGs published between December 2009 and December 2019 that make explicit anti-VEGF recommendations in DME. Sources of evidence Sensitive search strategy in Embase, Google Scholar and hand-searching on 165 websites. Methods We extracted information from each CPG with a previously piloted sheet. Two independent authors applied theAppraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation tool (AGREE-II) assessment for each CPG. Results The 21 included CPGs recommend anti-VEGF for DME, but there is a wide variation among the clinical aspects included, such as location of DME, visual acuity required, therapeutical alternatives or discontinuation. Most have a poor quality of reporting based on the AGREE-II tool assessment, especially those developed by ophthalmological societies, those that have an exclusive content about DME, and those where most of their authors disclose conflict of interest (COI) with pharmaceutical industry or where their authors did not report COIs. Pharmaceutical-sponsored CPGs did not use systematic reviews (SRs) to support their recommendations. Very few recommendations consider patient values and preferences, equity, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. Conclusions Most of the CPGs that made recommendations of anti-VEGF for DME have poor quality of reporting, do not use SRs and do not consider patients’ values and preferences.
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    Revisiones rápidas: definiciones y usos
    (2021) Tapia-Benavente, Luis; Vergara-Merino, Laura; Garegnani, Luis Ignacio; Ortiz-Muñoz, Luis; Loézar Hernández, Cristóbal; Vargas-Peirano, Manuel
    Este artículo es el primero de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de esta revisión es presentar las revisiones rápidas, compararlas con las revisiones sistemáticas y mencionar su uso actual. Las revisiones rápidas utilizan una metodología similar a las revisiones sistemáticas, pero mediante atajos utilizados en su desarrollo; permiten alcanzar respuestas en menos de seis meses y con menos recursos, por lo que son utilizadas por tomadores de decisiones tanto en América como Europa. No existe consenso sobre cuáles atajos tienen menor impacto en la confiabilidad de las conclusiones, por lo que las revisiones rápidas son heterogéneas entre sí. Los consumidores deben identificar estos atajos en la metodología y ser precavidos en la interpretación de las conclusiones, aunque generalmente alcanzan respuestas concordantes con las obtenidas mediante una revisión sistemática tradicional. Su principal atractivo es ajustarse a las necesidades de los tomadores de decisiones en salud, cuando el contexto exige respuestas en plazos de tiempo acotados.
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    What you need to know about scoping reviews
    (2021) Verdejo, Catalina; Tapia-Benavente, Luis; Schuller-Martínez, Bastián; Vergara-Merino, Laura; Vargas-Peirano, Manuel; Silva-Dreyer, Ana María
    he increasing amount of evidence has caused an increasing amount of literature reviews. There are different types of reviews —systematic reviews are the best known—, and every type of review has different purposes. The scoping review is a recent model that aims to answer broad questions and identify and expose the available evidence for a broader question, using a rigorous and reproducible method. In the last two decades, researchers have discussed the most appropriate method to carry out scoping reviews, and recently the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was published. This is the fifth article of a methodological collaborative series of narrative reviews about general topics on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to describe what scoping reviews are, identify their objectives, differentiate them from other types of reviews, and provide considerations on how to carry them out.