Información del artículo
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
Biblografía
[1.]
J.P. Gisbert.
Fuentes y centros de gestión del conocimiento.
Enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal al día, 2 (2003), pp. 32-38
[2.]
J.M. López Arrieta, N. Qizilbash.
La medicina basada en pruebas: revisiones sistemáticas. La Colaboración Cochrane.
Med Clin (Barc), 107 (1996), pp. 581-585
[3.]
A. Sáenz, M. Ausejo.
Guía para leer e interpretar una revisión sistemática.
Rev Soc Mad Med Fam Comunit, 2 (2000), pp. 29-36
[4.]
R. Gabriel-Sánchez, M. Pladevall-Vila.
Evaluación de la evidencia en medicina: revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis.
Medicine, 7 (1998), pp. 4845-4851
[5.]
D.J. Cook, C.D. Mulrow, R.B. Haynes.
Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions.
Ann Intern Med, 126 (1997), pp. 376-380
[6.]
J. Siwek, M.L. Gourlay, D.C. Slawson, A.F. Shaughnessy.
How to write an evidence-based clinical review article.
Am Fam Physician, 65 (2002), pp. 251-258
[7.]
E.M. Antman, J. Lau, B. Kupelnick, F. Mosteller, T.C. Chalmers.
A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction.
JAMA, 268 (1992), pp. 240-248
[8.]
A.D. Oxman, D.J. Cook, G.H. Guyatt.
Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 1367-1371
[9.]
C. Ceballos, J.R. Valdizan, A. Artal, C. Almarcegui, C. Allepuz, J. García Campayo, et al.
¿Por qué la medicina basada en la evidencia?.
20 años de metaanálisis. An Med Interna, 17 (2000), pp. 521-526
[10.]
L.M. Molinero.
Interpretación, utilidad y limitaciones del metaanálisis.
Gastroenterol Hepatol Continuada, 1 (2002), pp. 311-318
[11.]
Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2 [updated March 2003]. En: Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Versión 4.2,
[12.]
Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano.
Manual de revisores (versión española de «Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook») [actualización de junio 2000].
[13.]
C. Counsell.
Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews.
Ann Intern Med, 127 (1997), pp. 380-387
[14.]
R. Kunz, A.D. Oxman.
The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials.
BMJ, 317 (1998), pp. 1185-1190
[15.]
K. Dickersin, R. Scherer, C. Lefebvre.
Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews.
BMJ, 309 (1994), pp. 1286-1291
[16.]
M. Delgado-Rodríguez, M. Sillero-Arenas.
Sesgos en el metaanálisis.
Med Clin (Barc), 112 (1999), pp. 43-50
[17.]
M. Egger, T. Zellweger-Zahner, M. Schneider, C. Junker, C. Lengeler, G. Antes.
Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German.
Lancet, 350 (1997), pp. 326-329
[18.]
A.J. Sutton, S.J. Duval, R.L. Tweedie, K.R. Abrams, D.R. Jones.
Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses.
BMJ, 320 (2000), pp. 1574-1577
[19.]
L. McAuley, B. Pham, P. Tugwell, D. Moher.
Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?.
Lancet, 356 (2000), pp. 1228-1231
[20.]
J.Q. Huang, R.H. Hunt.
Uses and abuses of meta-analysis in gastroenterology.
Chin J Dig Dis, 3 (2002), pp. 39-42
[21.]
T.C. Chalmers, P. Celano, H.S. Sacks.
Smith H Jr. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials.
N Engl J Med, 309 (1983), pp. 1358-1361
[22.]
D. Moher, B. Pham, A. Jones, D.J. Cook, A.R. Jadad, M. Moher, et al.
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?.
Lancet, 352 (1998), pp. 609-613
[23.]
P. Juni, D.G. Altman, M. Egger.
Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.
BMJ, 323 (2001), pp. 42-46
[25.]
D. Moher, A.R. Jadad, G. Nichol, M. Penman, P. Tugwell, S. Walsh.
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists.
Control Clin Trials, 16 (1995), pp. 62-73
[26.]
A.R. Jadad, R.A. Moore, D. Carroll, C. Jenkinson, D.J. Reynolds, D.J. Gavaghan, et al.
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?.
Control Clin Trials, 17 (1996), pp. 1-12
[27.]
J.P. Gisbert, X. Calvet, R. Gabriel, J.M. Pajares.
Infección por Helicobacter pylori y dispepsia funcional. Metaanálisis de la eficacia del tratamiento erradicador.
Med Clin (Barc), 118 (2002), pp. 405-409
[28.]
J.P. Gisbert, L. González, X. Calvet, M. Roque, R. Gabriel, J.M. Pajares.
Proton pump inhibitors versus H2-antagonists: a metaanalysis of their efficacy in treating bleeding peptic ulcer.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 15 (2001), pp. 917-926
[29.]
J.P. Gisbert, S. Khorrami, F. Carballo, X. Calvet, E. Gené, E. Domínguez-Muñoz.
Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy versus antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without longterm maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer (Cochrane Review). En: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4.
[30.]
H.J. McQuay, R.A. Moore.
Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice.
Ann Intern Med, 126 (1997), pp. 712-720
[31.]
D. Moher, D.J. Cook, S. Eastwood, I. Olkin, D. Rennie, D.F. Stroup.
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.
Lancet, 354 (1999), pp. 1896-1900
[32.]
D. Moher, D.J. Cook, S. Eastwood, I. Olkin, D. Rennie, D.F. Stroup.
Mejora de la calidad de los informes de los metaanálisis de ensayos clínicos controlados: el acuerdo QUOROM.
Rev Esp Salud Pública, 74 (2000), pp. 107-118
[33.]
J.C. Cappelleri, J.P. Ioannidis, C.H. Schmid, S.D. De Ferranti, M. Aubert, T.C. Chalmers, et al.
Large trials versus meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare?.
JAMA, 276 (1996), pp. 1332-1338
[34.]
J. LeLorier, G. Gregoire, A. Benhaddad, J. Lapierre, F. Derderian.
Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.
N Engl J Med, 337 (1997), pp. 536-542
[35.]
P. Moayyedi, S. Soo, J. Deeks, B. Delaney, A. Harris, M. Innes, et al.
Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia (Cochrane Review). En: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1.
[36.]
X. Bonfill, C. Etcheverry, J. Martí, J.P. Glutting, G. Urrutia, M. Pladevall.
El desarrollo de la Colaboración Cochrane española.
Med Clin (Barc), 112 (1999), pp. 17-20
Esta revisión ha sido realizada en parte gracias a la concesión de las becas del Instituto de Salud Carlos III (C03/02 y G03/090) y de la Red Temática de «Medicina basada en l’evidència: la Col·laboració Cochrane Iberoamericana» (exp. 2003/XT/00087), Departament d’Universitats, Recerca i Societat de la Informació, Generalitat de Catalunya
Copyright © 2004. Elsevier España, S.L.. Todos los derechos reservados
