Busca e Interpretação da Literatura Médica: Da Evidência à Prática Clínica

https://doi.org/10.63923/sdes.2025.31

Resumo

O método científico é a melhor ferramenta que dispomos para compreensão do mundo material que nos rodeia e poder acessar o conhecimento acumulado ao longo de anos de pesquisa na área médica e da saúde é essencial para o profissional que deseja oferecer o melhor cuidado possível ao seu paciente. Este texto traz um conjunto de dicas práticas para que você possa ser de fato o agente da busca ativa do conhecimento científico, informando a sua prática clínica sem nunca perder de vista a fronteira do conhecimento na sua área de atuação.  O texto do artigo é baseado na aula do Prof. Eric Pascher disponível na plataforma SUMMA (acesse aqui).

Referências

1. ABDALLA, M.; ABDALLA, S.; ABDALLA, M. (2023) Tracing the path of 37,050 studies into practice across 18 specialties of the 2.4 million published between 2011 and 2020. eLife, v. 12, 28 fev.
2. BROWN, D. A (2020) Review of the PubMed PICO Tool. Health Promotion Practice, v. 21, n. 4, p. 496–498, 16 fev.
3. COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD, SHEFFIELD, U. K. (2023) Correction to: Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, v. 30, n. 3, p. 625–625, 16 fev.
4. CHRISTENSEN, R., CIANI, O., MANYARA, A. M., & TAYLOR, R. S. (2024). Surrogate endpoints: a key concept in clinical epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 167, 111242.
5. FELDNER, K., & DUTKA, P. (2024). Exploring the evidence: generating a research question: using the PICOT framework for clinical inquiry. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 51(4), 393-395.
6. GUYATT, G., RENNIE, D., & SATYA-MURTI, S. (2002). Users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association-International Edition, 287(11), 1463.
7. IOANNIDIS, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
8. LAFUENTE-LAFUENTE C, LEITAO C, KILANI I, KACHER Z, ENGELS C, CANOUÏ-POITRINE F, BELMIN J. (2019) Knowledge and use of evidence-based medicine in daily practice by health professionals: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. Mar 30;9(3):e025224. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025224. PMID: 30928940; PMCID: PMC6475442.
9. MCGLOTHLIN, A. E., & LEWIS, R. J. (2014). Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA, 312(13), 1342–1343. htps://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.13128
10. MCLEOD, C., NORMAN, R., LITTON, E., SAVILLE, B. R., WEBB, S., & SNELLING, T. L. (2019). Choosing primary endpoints for clinical trials of health care interventions. Contemporary clinical trials communications, 16, 100486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100486
11. MURAD, M. H., ASI, N., ALSAWAS, M., & ALAHDAB, F. (2016). New evidence pyramid. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 21 (4), 125–127.
12. NOVACK L, JOTKOWITZ A, KNYAZER B, NOVACK V (2006). Evidence-based medicine: assessment of knowledge of basic epidemiological and research methods among medical doctors. Postgrad Med J. Dec;82(974):817-22. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2006.049262. PMID: 17148706; PMCID: PMC2653930.
13. PROCTOR, E. K., BUNGER, A. C., LENGNICK-HALL, R., GERKE, D. R., MARTIN, J. K., PHILLIPS, R. J., & SWANSON, J. C. (2023). Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review. Implementation Science, 18(1), 31.
14. RATNANI, I., FATIMA, S., ABID, M. M., SURANI, Z., SURANI, S., & FATIMA, S. (2023). Evidence-based medicine: history, review, criticisms, and pitfalls. Cureus, 15(2).
15. U.S. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. PUBMED HELP [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information (US); [cited 2025 Apr 23]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/