RESUMEN

Objetivo: Investigar la calidad metodológica de las revisiones sistemáticas publicadas sobre factores asociados con COVID-19 en personas con diabetes. Método: Revisión sistemática con protocolo de registro en PROSPERO, bajo el número CRD42020222418. Las búsquedas se realizaron de octubre a noviembre de 2020 en las bases de datos de las bibliotecas Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, Embase y Cochrane Library, además de la búsqueda en la lista de referencias de los estudios seleccionados. Se incluyeron estudios de revisión sistemática con o sin metaanálisis y sin restricciones de fecha e idioma. Los datos se extrajeron de forma estandarizada y la calidad de los estudios se evaluó mediante la escala Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. Resultados: Se incluyeron 12 revisiones, publicadas entre 2020 y 2021, con predominio del idioma inglés; son revisiones sistemáticas de estudios observacionales con metaanálisis con una muestra que va desde 6 a 83 estudios. En cuanto a la financiación, la mayoría de los estudios informaron que no recibieron este tipo de ayuda. En cuanto a la evaluación de la calidad metodológica, 3 fueron de calidad moderada, 5 fueron clasificados como de baja calidad y 3 revisiones sistemáticas fueron evaluadas como críticamente bajas. Conclusiones: Los artículos analizados presentaron un sesgo en la elaboración de informes sobre sus estudios, evidenciando la necesidad de utilizar mecanismos para mejorar la adherencia a los lineamientos de reporte establecidos y herramientas de evaluación metodológica.(AU)

Objective: To investigate the methodological quality of published systematic reviews of factors associated with COVID-19 in people with diabetes. Method: Systematic review with registration protocol in PROSPERO, under the number CRD42020222418. Searches were carried out from October to November 2020 in the databases of the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, Embase and Cochrane Library, in addition to searching the reference list of the selected studies. Systematic review studies with or without meta-analysis and without date and language restrictions were included. Data were extracted in a standardized way and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scale. Results: Twelve reviews, published between 2020 and 2021, with a predominance of the English language, systematic reviews of observational studies with meta-analysis with a sample ranging from 6 to 83 studies, were included. Regarding financing, most of the study reported did not receive this type of support. Regarding to the assessment of the methodological quality of the studies, 3 were of moderate quality, 5 were classified as low quality and 3 with critically low quality. Conclusions: The analyzed articles presented a bias in the preparation of reports on their studies, suggesting the need to use mechanisms to improve adherence to the established reporting guidelines and methodological evaluation tools.(AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objective: To investigate the methodological quality of published systematic reviews of factors associated with COVID-19 in people with diabetes. Method: Systematic review with registration protocol in PROSPERO, under the number CRD42020222418. Searches were carried out from October to November 2020 in the databases of the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, Embase and Cochrane Library, in addition to searching the reference list of the selected studies. Systematic review studies with or without meta-analysis and without date and language restrictions were included. Data were extracted in a standardized way and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scale. Results: Twelve reviews, published between 2020 and 2021, with a predominance of the English language, systematic reviews of observational studies with meta-analysis with a sample ranging from 6 to 83 studies, were included. Regarding financing, most of the study reported did not receive this type of support. Regarding to the assessment of the methodological quality of the studies, 3 were of moderate quality, 5 were classified as low quality and 3 with critically low quality. Conclusions: The analyzed articles presented a bias in the preparation of reports on their studies, suggesting the need to use mechanisms to improve adherence to the established reporting guidelines and methodological evaluation tools.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introdução: O tempo de reação é uma medida que indica o tempo que uma pessoa leva para iniciar um movimento. Há situações em que o tempo de reação encontra-se alterado, comprometendo o processamento da informação, com diminuição na detecção, transmissão e processamento dos estí­mulos. Objetivo: Investigar o tempo de reação visual em acadêmicos antes e após atividades avaliativas, nas diversas disciplinas. Metodologia: 50 acadêmicos foram analisados antes e após atividades avaliativas por meio do tempo de reação simples e paradigma oddball. Resultados: Com relação ao tempo de reação simples, o tempo de reação visual antes das atividades avaliativas foi menor que após, em contradição com o paradigma oddball. Verificou-se que a média geral do tempo de reação simples para prova prática foi maior comparado às demais, já no paradigma oddball verificou-se que a média geral para apresentação de seminário foi maior, comparado às demais. Conclusão: Diferenças significativas no tempo de reação simples e tempo de reação segundo paradigma oddball foram encontrados entre acadêmicos antes e após atividades avaliativas. Porém no tempo de reação simples foram encontrados valores menores antes das atividades, quando comparados com após, e o contrário foi encontrado no paradigma oddball. (AU)

Introduction: Reaction time is a measure of how long a person takes to start a movement. There are situations in which the reaction time is altered, compromising the information processing, with a decrease in the detection, transmission and processing of the stimuli. Objective: To investigate the time of visual reaction in academics before and after evaluative activities in different disciplines. Methodology: 50 academics were analyzed before and after evaluative activities through simple reaction time and oddball paradigm. Results: Relative to the time of simple reaction, the visual reaction time before the evaluative activities was smaller than after, in contradiction with the oddball paradigm. It was verified that the general mean of the simple reaction time for practical test was higher compared to the others, already in the oddball paradigm it was verified that the general average for seminar presentation was higher, compared to the others. Conclusion: Significant differences in the time of simple reaction and reaction time according to the oddball paradigm were found among academics before and after evaluative activities. However, in the simple reaction time smaller values were found before the activities, when compared with after, and the opposite was found in the oddball paradigm. (AU)

Asunto(s)