New Pyramid Proposal for the Levels of Scientific Evidence According to SIGN

Arieta-Miranda, Jessica M.; Ruiz-Yasuda, Catherine C.; Vargas, Luis Fernando Pérez; Ricse, Dayhanne Alexsandra Torres; Díaz, Solange Pérez; Arieta, Yosselyn Chávez; Victorio, Daniel José Blanco; Ramos, Gilmer Torres

doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000008946

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As it can be seen both pyramids are essentially the same, with the main difference of the Clinical Trials, which in the case of Washington University are in third place and in the one offered by the Altmetric Attention Score in second place. If we compare the results generated quantitatively with altmetrics with other pyramids of evidence generated by specialists (Arieta-Miranda et al, 2022;Murad et al, 2016) the similarities are more than reasonable. This is explained by the fact that altmetric capture the social attention that publications receive, so the typologies closest to society, at least the most useful ones, are likely to receive more attention on social platforms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Altmetrics can capture research evidence: an analysis across types of studies in COVID-19 literature

Valderrama-Baca

Arroyo-Machado

Torres‐Salinas

2023

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 has greatly impacted science. It has become a global research front that constitutes a unique phenomenon of interest for the scientometric community. Accordingly, there has been a proliferation of descriptive studies on COVID-19 papers using altmetrics. Social media metrics serve to elucidate how research is shared and discussed, and one of the key points is to determine which factors are well-conditioned altmetric values. The main objective of this study is to analyze whether the altmetric mentions of COVID-19 medical studies are associated with the type of study and its level of evidence. Data were collected from the PubMed and Altmetric.com databases. A total of 16,672 publications by study types (e.g., case reports, clinical trials, or meta-analyses) that were published in the year 2021 and that had at least one altmetric mention were retrieved. The altmetric indicators considered were Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), news mentions, Twitter mentions, and Mendeley readers. Once the dataset of COVID-19 had been created, the first step was to carry out a descriptive study. Then, a normality hypothesis was evaluated by means of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and since this was significant in all cases, the overall comparison of groups was performed using the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test. When this test rejected the null hypothesis, pairwise comparisons were performed with the Mann–Whitney U test, and the intensity of the possible association was measured using Cramer’s V coefficient. The results suggest that the data do not fit a normal distribution. The Mann–Whitney U test revealed coincidences in five groups of study types: The altmetric indicator with most coincidences was news mentions, and the study types with the most coincidences were the systematic reviews together with the meta-analyses, which coincided with four altmetric indicators. Likewise, between the study types and the altmetric indicators, a weak but significant association was observed through the chi-square and Cramer’s V. It can thus be concluded that the positive association between altmetrics and study types in medicine could reflect the level of the “pyramid” of scientific evidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Altmetrics can capture research evidence: an analysis across types of studies in COVID-19 literature

Valderrama-Baca

Arroyo-Machado

Torres‐Salinas

2023

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13,14,15 The above-mentioned variables were most addressed in the studies of Almeida et al 8 And de Pop-Jordanova et al 11 The work of Almeida et al 8 , the case-control type; it would have greater strength, in terms of scientific evidence. 16 High-quality scientific evidence requires approaches to evaluate the research methodologies. But the methodologies adopted are often not clearly presented.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral changes in diabetic children and adolescents: an integrative review

Fontes,

Correia,

Duarte

et al. 2023

JDMDC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To analyze whether there is strong scientific evidence on the relationship between diabetes mellitus and the behavior of children and adolescents. Method: Integrative literature review considering the virtual portals PubMed and BVS - Virtual Health Library. In this review were adopted the descriptors or MeSH Terms "Diabetes Mellitus", "Complications of Diabetes Mellitus", "Child Behavior" and "Adolescent Behavior", with the Boolean operators AND an NOT, respecting the PRISMA methodology: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The guiding question was directly related to the general objective of this review. We included scientific articles, published without time limit, in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. The exclusion criteria were: opinions, letters to the reader, essays, monographs, dissertations or theses, and studies without abstracts, focused exclusively on eating behavior, involving other dysfunctions that may affect the nervous system or behavior, or that were not related to the guiding question. The selection of the records was made independently by two researchers. From the reading of the title and abstract there was the selection of the papers for reading in full. Results: From 5,355 records, five articles were included and synthesized. Conclusion: Sleep difficulties, difficulties in the performance of executive functions, cognitive or daily routine were related to behavioral problems of this target population, as well as greater symptoms of depression, anxiety, and emotional instability, with the need for specialized monitoring.

show abstract

“…Hence, alcohol consumption, type, quantity, time of e-cigarette use, and the fact that e-cigarettes are mainly used by tobacco and former smokers ( 3 , 5 , 17 , 29 ) are essential confounding factors to consider in future studies. The remaining articles included were cohort studies with limited exposure time and small sample size, as well as case reports, which led to only low-level evidence ( 30 ) could be included in this rapid review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of E-cigarettes as a risk factor for oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer: a rapid review of clinical evidence

Gallagher,

Vargas,

Santos-Silva

2024

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The popularity of e-cigarettes has increased rapidly in the last decade, particularly among teens and young adults, being advertised as a less harmful alternative to conventional tobacco products. However, in vitro and in vivo studies have evidenced a variable quantity of potentially harmful components and some recognized carcinogens which may cause DNA damage in oral cells. Additionally, evidence suggests that e-cigarettes may play active roles in the pathogenesis of other malignancies, such as lung and bladder cancers. Therefore, this rapid review aimed to assess the available clinical evidence about using e-cigarettes as a risk factor for oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) and oral cancer. Material and Methods A systematic search for English language articles published was performed in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. After the study selection process, the authors included twelve clinical studies about OPMD and oral cancer risk in e-cigarette users. Results The main findings showed the presence of carcinogenic compounds in saliva and morphologic changes, DNA damage, and molecular pathways related to carcinogenesis in the oral cells of e-cigarette users. However, results were inconsistent compared to tobacco smokers and control groups. Conclusions the current clinical evidence on this topic is limited and insufficient to support using e-cigarettes as a risk factor for OPMD and oral cancer. Nevertheless, dental care professionals should advise patients responsibly about the potentially harmful effects of e-cigarettes on the oral mucosa cells. Future long-term and well-designed clinical studies are needed. Key words: Oral potentially malignant disorders, oral cancer, e-cigarettes, tobacco.

show abstract

New Pyramid Proposal for the Levels of Scientific Evidence According to SIGN

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

Altmetrics can capture research evidence: an analysis across types of studies in COVID-19 literature

Altmetrics can capture research evidence: an analysis across types of studies in COVID-19 literature

Behavioral changes in diabetic children and adolescents: an integrative review

The use of E-cigarettes as a risk factor for oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer: a rapid review of clinical evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About