Revisiones de alcance, revisiones paraguas y síntesis enfocada en revisión de mapas: aspectos metodológicos y aplicaciones

Diego Chambergo-Michilot; Mario E. Diaz-Barrera; Vicente A. Benites-Zapata

doi:10.17843/rpmesp.2021.381.6501

Authors

Diego Chambergo-Michilot Universidad Científica del Sur. Lima, Perú. Department of Cardiology Research, Torres de Salud National Research Center, Lima, Peru. Red Latinoamericana de Cardiología, Lima, Perú. Estudiante de medicina humana https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3904-7514
Mario E. Diaz-Barrera Unidad de Investigación en Bibliometría, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, USIL. Lima, Perú. Sociedad Científica de Estudiantes de Medicina de la Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, Perú. Estudiante de medicina humana https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9463-9427
Vicente A. Benites-Zapata Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Unidad para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud. Lima, Perú. médico cirujano https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9158-1108

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2021.381.6501

Keywords:

Evidence Based, Medicine, Methods, Research Design, Systematic Review

Abstract

We aimed to comment on the methodological differences and applications of these three types of reviews with special attention to Latin America. Among these new types of reviews we have the scoping review, umbrella review and focused mapping review synthesis. Scoping reviews identify the nature and extent of the evidence, umbrella reviews focus on the synthesis of all systematic reviews that address the same health problem, while focused mapping review syntheses are valid options when a classical mapping of the evidence is not feasible, due to addressing too many articles. As researchers in Latin America become familiar with the methodology and usefulness of these new types of review, an increase in scientific production will be observed.