Criteria for evaluating studies at scientific medical events
Keywords:
scientific society, research design, ethicsAbstract
Medical journals value the quality of studies. Scientific events are spaces for discussion in the face of scientific advances, innovation and consensus. In them, space is opened for the presentation of clinical studies, translational studies, experience reports and videos, with the best-designed studies being selected and awarded. The lack of clear criteria allows for differences in assessments, making it difficult to place value on situations associated with research. In order to improve quality, it is necessary to evaluate ethics, the hierarchy of scientific evidence (methodology), the study design, the originality, the relevance, and the linearity of the material presented. The present study aims to discuss these points, presenting proposals to be used in the evaluation of clinical studies, translational studies, case reports and videos in scientific medical events.
Downloads
References
Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Goldberg RJ. Clinical recommendations using levels of evidence for antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1995;108(4 Supl.):227S-30S. http://doi.org/10.1378/chest.108.4_supplement.227s
Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, Riley RD, Simmonds M, Stewart G, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1657-65. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3656
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000251
Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1500-24. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.014
McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM, Statistics Subcommittee of NCIEWGoCD. Reporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;100(2):229- 35. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9242-8
Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e012799. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799
Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D, et al. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. J Med Case Rep. 2013;7:223. http://doi.org/10.1186/1752-1947-7-223
Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Nível de Evidência científica por tipo de estudo [Internet]. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine; 2020 [accessed on May 1, 2020]. Available at: http://conitec.gov.br/images/Artigos_Publicacoes/Oxford-Centre-for-Evidence-Based-Medicine.pdf
Rubio DM, Schoenbaum EE, Lee LS, Schteingart DE, Marantz PR, Anderson KE, et al. Defining translational research: implications for training. Acad Med. 2010;85(3):470-5. http://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccd618
Padilha ARS. Resolução nº 466, de 12 de dezembro de 2012 [Internet]. Brasília: Conselho Nacional de Saúde; 2012 [accessed on May 1, 2020]. Available at: http://www.conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2012/Reso466.pdf
Venancio JAA. Carta Circular nº 166/2018-CONEP/SECNS/MS [Internet]. Brasília: Conselho Nacional de Saúde; 2018 [accessed on May 1, 2020]. Available at: http://conselho.saude.gov.br/images/comissoes/conep/documentos/CARTAS/CartaCircular166.pdf
Ministério da Saúde. Plataforma Brasil [Internet]. [accessed on May 1, 2020]. Available at: http://plataformabrasil.saude.gov.br/login.jsf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 René Aloisio da Costa Vieira, Tatiana Carvalho de Souza Bonetti, Marcia Maria Chiquitelli Marques, Gil Facina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
