A revisão sistemática de literatura em psicologia: Desafios e orientações

Cláudia Camilo, Margarida Vaz Garrido

Resumo


Nas últimas décadas, a comunidade científica tem assistido a um incremento exponencial na divulgação de ciência, com novas revistas lançadas anualmente e milhares de trabalhos de pesquisa publicados em vários domínios científicos entre os quais a Psicologia. No entanto, se por um lado é através da acumulação de conhecimento que a ciência avança, por outro, esse conhecimento deve ser integrado no sentido de informar a investigação, a prática e os decisores políticos.

As revisões sistemáticas da literatura constituem um valioso método para dar sentido a grandes corpos de informação sobre um determinado tópico, sumariar a investigação acumulada e avaliar a robustez dos seus resultados. Assim, e atendendo à importância que as revisões sistemáticas de literatura têm na acumulação e divulgação do conhecimento, é importante que sejam conduzidas através de métodos estruturados que permitam identificar, sintetizar e avaliar todos os estudos relevantes para responder a uma pergunta específica.

Neste artigo apresentam-se diferentes perspetivas e orientações sobre a condução de uma revisão sistemática da literatura no domínio da Psicologia, discutem-se os desafios associados a este método e procura-se facilitar cada etapa da condução da revisão sistemática através da apresentação de instrumentos e procedimentos recomendados na literatura.


Palavras-chave


Revisão sistemática de literatura, Síntese de resultados de investigação, Acumulação de conhecimento.

Texto Completo:

PDF

Referências


American Psychological Association [APA]. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Atkinson, K. M., Koenka, A. C., Sanchez, C. E., Moshontz, H., & Cooper, H. (2015). Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: Making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate. Research Synthesis Methods, 6, 87-95. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1127

Camilo, C., Garrido, M. V., & Calheiros, M. M. (2016). Implicit measures of child abuse and neglect: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 29, 43-54. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.06.002

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2008). Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: CRD, University of York.

Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O’Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., . . . Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 1291-1294. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013

Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22, 1435-1443. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938

Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3-9. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.3

Cooper, H. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (2009). Research synthesis as a scientific process. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 3-16). New York, NY: The Russell Sage Foundation.

Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Russell Sage Foundation.

Correia, N., Camilo, C., Aguiar, C., & Amaro, F. (2019). Children’s right to participate in early childhood education settings: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 76-88. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.031

Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17, 38-43. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059

Ferreira, M. B., & Santos, A. S. (2016). Divulgação científica: Preparação de relatórios, projetos ou artigos científicos. In M. V. Garrido & M. Prada (Eds.), Manual de competências académicas (pp. 343-374). Lisboa: Edições Sílabo.

Finkel, E. J., Simpson, J. A., & Eastwick, P. W. (2017). The psychology of close relationships: Fourteen core principles. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 383-411. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044038

Garrard, J. (2011). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1971). Scientific communication: Its role in the conduct of research and creation of knowledge. American Psychologist, 26, 349-362. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0032059

Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions – Version 5.1.0 [online]. Retrieved from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.1/

Ioannidis, J. P. A., Patsopoulos, N. A., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. BMJ, 336, 1413-1415. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a117

Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. K. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Jonsson, U., Bertilsson, G., Allard, P., Gyllensvärd, H., Söderlund, A., Tham, A., & Andersson, G. (2016). Psychological treatment of depression in people aged 65 years and over: A systematic review of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. PLoS ONE, 11(8), e0160859. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160859

Juni, P. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ, 323(7303), 42-46. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., . . . Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000100. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

Maïano, C., Aimé, A., Salvas, M., Morin, A. J. S., & Normand, C. L. (2016). Prevalence and correlates of bullying perpetration and victimization among school-aged youth with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 49-50, 181-195. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.11.015

Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., & Duvendack, M. (2012). The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4, 445-455. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.711342

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000097. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Pearson, A. (2004). Balancing the evidence: Incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. JBI Reports, 2, 45-64. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-6988.2004.00008.x

Perinelli, E., & Gremigni, P. (2016). Use of social desirability scales in clinical psychology: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72, 534-551. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22284

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Reed, J. G., & Baxter, P. M. (2009). Using reference databases. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 73-101). New York, NY: The Russell Sage Foundation.

Ribeiro, J. L. P. (2014). Revisão de investigação e evidência científica. Psicologia, Saúde & Doenças, 15, 671-682. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.15309/14psd150309

Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 103-125). New York, NY: The Russell Sage Foundation.

Soilemezi, D., & Linceviciute, S. (2018). Synthesizing qualitative research: Reflections and lessons learnt by two new reviewers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1-14. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1609406918768014

The PLoS Medicine Editors. (2011). Best practice in systematic reviews: The importance of protocols and registration. PLoS Medicine, 8. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009

Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20, 57-59.

Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., . . . Egger, M. (2007). Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 4(10), e297. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297

Wilson, D. B. (2009). Systematic coding. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 159-176). New York, NY: The Russell Sage Foundation.

Yap, M. B. H., & Jorm, A. F. (2015). Parental factors associated with child hood anxiety, depression, and internalizing problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 175, 424-440. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.050




DOI: https://doi.org/10.14417/ap.1546

Apontamentos

  • Não há apontamentos.


Nº ERC: 107494 | ISSN (in print): 0870-8231 | ISSN (online): 1646-6020 | Copyright © ISPA - CRL, 2012 | Rua Jardim do Tabaco, 34, 1149-041 Lisboa | NIF: 501313672 | O portal e metadados estão licenciados sob a licença Creative Commons CC BY-NC