medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2008, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

salud publica mex 2008; 50 (6)

Scientific rationality, causality and metaanalyses of clinical trials

De-Regil LM, Casanueva E

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 523-529
PDF size: 557.39 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Currently, the challenge is to analyze and synthesize as much information as possible in order to make quick, correct decisions. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis have quickly arisen in the health field because they allow researchers to congregate studies of similar characteristics to generate estimators that describe the risk or benefit of practices related to health problems. To understand and attach the appropriate importance to meta-analyses, it is necessary to consider the rationale of the theoretical framework, the methodological criteria, and the possible causal relationship between exposure and outcome, besides contextualizing the information. This paper briefly explores scientific rationality and its application in causal theory within an epidemiological framework, to set the basis that allows decision-makers and health professionals to evaluate the appropriateness and validity of conclusions derived from this type of analyses.


REFERENCES

  1. Casanueva M. Tres aspectos de la racionalidad científica. En: Racionalidad. Velasco A, Pérez-Ranzanz AR, eds. México, DF: Facultad de Filosofía. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2006.

  2. MacMahon B, Pugh TF. Causes and entities of disease. En: Preventive Medicine. Duncan WC, MacMahon B, eds. Boston: Little Brown, 1967:11-18.

  3. Gómez F, Ramos R, Frenk S, Cravioto J, Chávez R. Estudios sobre el niño desnutrido. XIV Mortalidad en la desnutrición de tercer grado. Gac Med Mex 1957;87(2):81-90.

  4. Schwarts E, Susser E, Susser M. A future for epidemiology? Annu Rev Pub Health 1999;20:15-33.

  5. Rothman K, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. 2a ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1998.

  6. Parascandola M, Weed DL. Causation in epidemiology. J Epidemiol. Community Health 2001;55;905-912.

  7. Susser M. Glossary: causality in public health science. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:376-378.

  8. Höfler M. The Bradford Hill considerations on causality: a counterfactual perspective. Emerg Themes Epidemiol 2005; 2:11.

  9. Barker FG, Carter BS. Synthesizing medical evidence: systematic reviews and metaanalyses. Neurosurg Focus 2005;19(4):1:21.

  10. Petiti D. Meta-analysis, decision analysis and cost-effectviness analysis: Methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. 2nd. ed. Nueva York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

  11. Egger M, Smith DG, Sterne JAC. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clin Med 2001;1(5):478

  12. Higgins UPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of intervention. The Cochrane Collaboration. [Consultado Febrero 2008]. Disponible en: www.Cochrane-handbook.org.

  13. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in metaanalysis. BMJ 2001;323(7304):101-105.

  14. Egger M, Schneider M, Smith G. Bas in location and selection of studies. BMJ 1998;316:61-66.

  15. Committee on Publication Ethics. Guidelines on good publication practice. Fam Pract 2000; 17: 218-221.

  16. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31(1):115-123.

  17. Sutton AJ. Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review. Stat Methods Med Res 2000; 9: 421-445.

  18. Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 13;315:629-634.

  19. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191-1194.

  20. Egger M, Schneider M, Smith G. Meta-analysis Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ 1998; 7125(316 ):

  21. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327;557-560.

  22. Pértega-Díaz S, Pita-Fernández S. Revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis (II). CAD ATEN PRIMARIA 2005; 12(3): 166-171 [Consultado el 18 de junio de 2007]. Disponible en: http://www.fisterra.com/mbe/investiga/metaanalisis/RSyMetaanalisis2.asp

  23. Hierarchy of evidence and grading of recommendations. Thorax 2004;59;13-14. [Consultado el 20 de septiembre de 2008]. Disponible en: http://thorax.bmx.com/cgi/reprint/59/suppl 1/i/3.

  24. Real Academia de la Lengua Española. [sitio de internet] [Consultado el 5 septiembre de 2007] Disponible en: www.rae.es

  25. Boucourt-Rivera L. Su excelencia: la medicina basada en evidencias. ACIMED 2003; 11(3): 3, 4.

  26. Recommendations for the use of folic acid to reduce the number of cases of spina bifida and other neural tube defects. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1992 Sep 11;41(RR-14):1-7. [Consultado el 5 de septiembre de 2007] Disponible en: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00019479.htm

  27. Chovil AC.Occupational lung cancer and smoking: a review in the light of current theories of carcinogenesis. Can Med Assoc J 1979;121(5):548-550, 553-555.

  28. Weed DL. Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epid 2000;29:387-390.

  29. Davey-Smith G, Egger M. Meta-analysis. Unresolved issues and future developments. BMJ 1998;316(7126):221-225.

  30. Polyzos NP, Mauri D, Tsappi M, Tzioras S, Kamposioras K, Cortinovis I, et al. Combined vitamin C and E supplementation during pregnancy for preeclampsia prevention: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2007;62(3):202-206.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com