# data[].attributes.body
SOFTWARE PARA INSTALAR EN LA PC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just need to create a quick bibliography?

Zotero is a free, easy-to-use tool to help you collect, organize, annotate, cite, and share research.
Download
Available for Mac, Windows, Linux, and iOS

Just need to create a quick bibliography? Try ZoteroBib.

Collect with a click.

Zotero automatically senses research as you browse the web. Need an article from JSTOR or a preprint from arXiv.org? A news story from the New York Times or a book from a library? Zotero has you covered, everywhere.

Organize your way.

Zotero helps you organize your research any way you want. You can sort items into collections and tag them with keywords. Or create saved searches that automatically fill with relevant materials as you work.

Cite in style.

Zotero instantly creates references and bibliographies for any text editor, and directly inside Word, LibreOffice, and Google Docs. With support for over 10,000 citation styles, you can format your work to match any style guide or publication.

Stay in sync.

Zotero can optionally synchronize your data across devices, keeping your files, notes, and bibliographic records seamlessly up to date. If you decide to sync, you can also always access your research from any web browser.

Collaborate freely.

Zotero lets you co-write a paper with a colleague, distribute course materials to students, or build a collaborative bibliography. You can share a Zotero library with as many people you like, at no cost.

Rest easy.

Zotero is open source and developed by an independent, nonprofit organization that has no financial interest in your private information. With Zotero, you always stay in control of your own data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zotero | Your personal research assistant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zotero is a free, easy-to-use tool to help you collect, organize, cite, and share research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Connected Papers | Find and explore academic papers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Connected Papers is a visual tool to help researchers and applied scientists find academic papers relevant to their field of work.

# data[].attributes.body
3 PDF POR DIA, 90 PREGUNTAS POR DIA. SINO COMPREN VERSIÓN PREMIUM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ChatPDF is the fast and easy way to chat with any PDF, free and without sign-in. Talk to books, research papers, manuals, essays, legal contracts, whatever you have! The intelligence revolution is here, ChatGPT was just the beginning!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
EQUATOR highlights

We're delighted to announce that our partnership with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO/WHO) has resulted in http://www.equator-network.org becoming multilingual

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has updated its official Recommendations for journals and authors and now includes a whole new section about preprints. The document now sets out more detailed advice for journals and authors regarding preprints, [...]

Interesting videos

EQUATOR Canada Publication School team educational video

The EQUATOR Canada Publication School team (consisting of patient partners and researchers) have launched an educational video resource, titled "How do I publish a paper? The introductory video provides viewers with practical guidance on how the publication team, consisting of patient/public partners and research team members, can work together to define roles and contributions throughout the publication process.

Centre for Journalology Speaker Series video

The Canadian EQUATOR Centre, home to the Centre for Journalology, has started a new Speaker Series for 2021. The first session in the series was held on the 14th of January and was presented by Dr Lisa Caulley, Dr Robert Frank, Hassan Khan, and Alicia Ricketts, from the Centre. They spoke about recent research on reporting guidelines, planned research examining open science hiring practices, and journal transparency. The recording of the talk is freely available.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EQUATOR Network | Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We're delighted to announce that our partnership with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO/WHO) has resulted in http://www.equator-network.org becoming multilingual The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has updated its official Recommendations for journals and authors and now includes a whole new section about preprints.

# data[].attributes.headline
ESCALA PEDRO (CHECK LIST)PARA ART. CIENTÍFICOS 

# data[].attributes.subject
ESCALA PEDRO (CHECK LIST)PARA ART. CIENTÍFICOS 

# data[].attributes.headline
Comparación entre ambos métodos de evaluacion de riesgo de sesgo

# data[].attributes.subject
Comparación entre ambos métodos de evaluacion de riesgo de sesgo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The .gov means it's official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

. 2019 Sep 19;14(9):e0222770.

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222770.

Affiliations

¹ Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

² Physiotherapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

³ School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

⁴ Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

⁵ Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

⁶ School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Free PMC article

Anne M Moseley et al. PLoS One.

Free PMC article

. 2019 Sep 19;14(9):e0222770.

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222770.

Affiliations

¹ Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

² Physiotherapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

³ School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

⁴ Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

⁵ Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

⁶ School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

Background: The Cochrane risk of bias (CROB) tool and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale are used to evaluate risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. We assessed the level of agreement between the instruments.

Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library to identify trials included in systematic reviews evaluating physical therapy interventions. For trials that met our inclusion criteria (primary reference in Cochrane review, review used CROB (2008 version), indexed in PEDro), CROB items were extracted from the reviews and PEDro items and total score were downloaded from PEDro. Kappa statistics were used to determine the agreement between CROB and PEDro scale items that evaluate similar constructs (e.g., randomization). The total PEDro score was compared to the CROB summary score (% of items met) using an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of the CROB "unclear" category and variants of CROB blinding items. Kappa statistics were used to determine agreement between different thresholds for "acceptable" risk of bias between CROB and PEDro scale summary scores.

Results: We included 1442 trials from 108 Cochrane reviews. Agreement was "moderate" for three of the six CROB and PEDro scale items that evaluate similar constructs (allocation concealment, participant blinding, assessor blinding; Kappa = 0.479-0.582). Agreement between the summary scores was "poor" (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.285). Agreement was highest when the CROB "unclear" category was collapsed with "high" and when participant, personnel and assessor blinding were evaluated separately in CROB. Agreement for different thresholds for "acceptable" risk of bias between CROB and PEDro summary scores was, at best, "fair".

Conclusion: There was moderate agreement for half of the PEDro and CROB items that evaluate similar constructs. Interpretation of the CROB "unclear" category and variants of the CROB blinding items substantially influenced agreement. Either instrument can be used to quantify risk of bias, but they can't be used interchangeably.

Conflict of interest statement

Two authors (AMM and CS) are developers of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Six authors (AMM, PR, GAW, CS, LB, KT-A) have contributed to nearly 50 Cochrane reviews. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Similar articles

The PEDro scale had acceptably high convergent validity, construct validity, and interrater reliability in evaluating methodological quality of pharmaceutical trials.

Yamato TP, Maher C, Koes B, Moseley A. Yamato TP, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jun;86:176-181. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.03.002. Epub 2017 Mar 11. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017. PMID: 28288916

References

Sackett D. Evidence-based medicine. Lancet. 1995; 346(8983):1171 . - PubMed

Gray JAM. Evidence-based healthcare and public health: how to make decisions about health services and public health. 3rd ed ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2009. 10.1186/1471-2458-9-419 - DOI

Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0: Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.

Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003; 83(8):713-721. . - PubMed

Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs Seida J, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009; 339:b4012 10.1136/bmj.b4012 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Grant support

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
randomized controlled trials as topic / methods*

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national center for biotechnology information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Agreement between the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale: A meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions - PubMed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There was moderate agreement for half of the PEDro and CROB items that evaluate similar constructs. Interpretation of the CROB "unclear" category and variants of the CROB blinding items substantially influenced agreement. Either instrument can be used to quantify risk of bias, but they can't be used ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editors: Julian PT Higgins, Douglas G Altman and Jonathan AC Sterne on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group.

Problems with the design and execution of individual studies of healthcare interventions raise questions about the validity of their findings; empirical evidence provides support for this concern.

An assessment of the validity of studies included in a Cochrane review should emphasize the risk of bias in their results, i.e. the risk that they will overestimate or underestimate the true intervention effect.

Numerous tools are available for assessing methodological quality of clinical trials. We recommend against the use of scales yielding a summary score.

The Cochrane Collaboration recommends a specific tool for assessing risk of bias in each included study. This comprises a judgement and a support for the judgement for each entry in a 'Risk of bias' table, where each entry addresses a specific feature of the study. The judgement for each entry involves assessing the risk of bias as 'low risk', as 'high risk, or as 'unclear risk', with the last category indicating either lack of information or uncertainty over the potential for bias.

Plots of 'Risk of bias' assessments can be created in RevMan.

In clinical trials, biases can be broadly categorized as selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other biases that do not fit into these categories.

For parallel group trials, the features of interest in a standard 'Risk of bias' table of a Cochrane review are sequence generation (selection bias), allocation sequence concealment (selection bias), blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective outcome reporting (reporting bias) and other potential sources of bias.

Detailed considerations for the assessment of these features are provided in this chapter.

8.1 Introduction 8.2 What is bias? 8.3 Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias 8.4 Introduction to sources of bias in clinical trials Table 8.4.a: A common classification scheme for bias 8.5 The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias 8.6 Presentation of assessments of risk of bias Figure 8.6.a: Example of a 'Risk of bias' table Figure 8.6.b: Example of a 'Risk of bias graph' Figure Figure 8.6.c: Example of a 'Risk of bias summary' Figure 8.7 Summary assessments of risk of bias Table 8.7.a: Possible approach for summary assessments 8.8 Incorporating assessments into analyses 8.9 Sequence generation 8.10 Allocation sequence concealment 8.11 Blinding of participants and personnel 8.12 Blinding of outcome assessment 8.13 Incomplete outcome data 8.14 Selective outcome reporting 8.15 Other potential threats to validity 8.16 Chapter information 8.17 References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Assessing risk of bias in included studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editors: Julian PT Higgins, Douglas G Altman and Jonathan AC Sterne on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Problems with the design and execution of individual studies of healthcare interventions raise questions about the validity of their findings; empirical evidence provides support for this concern.

# data[].attributes.body
Buenas noches, comparto mi resumen del texto:
El autor invita a realizar una reflexión sobre la formación de la pregunta de investigación. Por lo que considera que para comenzar una investigación, una vez planteado el problema, debemos redactar la pregunta ya que será el eje de la investigación. Para ello, debe contar con el acrónimo FINER que hace referencia a que sea: factible, interesante, novedosa, ética y relevante. Y para garantizar su calidad lo resume mediante el acrónimo PICOT o PECOT: personas, intervención o exposición, comparación, desenlace y tiempo. Una vez realizada la pregunta permitirá la redacción de los objetivos, elegir el diseño y la metodología.

# data[].attributes.body
Buenas noches, comparto mi síntesis sobre el texto:
- La pregunta es el inicio y eje de la investigación, sirve de guía hacia lo que vamos a investigar. Una buena pregunta nos va a orientar a la redacción de objetivos, definir el diseño, y guiar la metodología y el análisis. También debe basarse en el acrónimo FINER (debe ser factible, interesante, novedosa, ética y relevante) y PICOT o PECOT para garantizar que sea de buena calidad. Por lo que deben ser sencillas, claras e informativas, además de que se deben redactar cuidadosamente y revisar ampliamente, para que sean una correcta guía y columna durante la investigación.

# data[].attributes.body
Buenas noches a todos, envio resumen del texto La pregunta, eje de la investigación:
Para comenzar una investigación tenemos que formular una pregunta, ya que es el inicio y el eje de la misma, que parte de un problema. Una buena pregunta nos va a dar pautas para justificar de forma sólida la investigación. Debe ser clara, sencilla y que pueda entenderse fácilmente, desde el título hasta los resultados, en un artículo de investigación. Para formular una pregunta de investigación, tenemos que tener en cuenta el acrónimo FINER(factible, interesante, novedosa, ética y relevante). Además, hay otra opción para que la pregunta sea de calidad, es PICOT o PECOT ( Personas o pacientes, intervención o exposición, comparación, desenlace o resultado, tiempo) que se utiliza para estudios de intervención, revisiones sistemáticas y metanálisis de intervenciones.

# data[].attributes.body
Saludos compañeros y profesor, por mi parte del texto sobre la pregunta de investigación me quedo con la siguiente reflexión:

Formular la pregunta de la investigación correctamente permite enfocar la misma, orientar tanto el objetivo principal como los secundarios, la justifica ante la comunidad científica y orienta de forma clara al lector que planea indagar sobre nuestra investigación.

Se puede utilizar el acrónimo FINER que representa lo factible, interesante, novedoso, ético y relevante que se investiga para asegurarse del planteo correcto de la pregunta; o también el acrónimo PICOT o PECOT que ayuda a verificar componentes y aspectos que están relacionados a la pregunta y corresponden a: las personas o población, intervención o exposición según el tipo de investigación, comparación o grupo control, desenlace (o resultado de interés) y tiempo (seguimiento o respuesta de la intervención).

# data[].attributes.body
Hola compañeros y profesor, comparto mi síntesis sobre el texto la pregunta.
-La pregunta debe reflejar el problema de investigación, es la base sobre la que se sustenta nuestra tesina. Una pregunta correctamente formulada nos facilitará el desarrollo de nuestra investigación y le otorgará valor científico a la misma. Entendiendo tal importancia habrá que dedicarle tiempo para realizar las correcciones necesarias que nos permitan obtener una pregunta sencilla, certera y de calidad en relación a los criterios incluidos en el acrónimo FINER, y las estructuras PICOT o PECOT.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Verificar la fuente: Antes de subir cualquier contenido al Padlet, es importante asegurarse de que la información provenga de fuentes confiables y verificadas. Esto es especialmente importante si se trata de información que puede tener un impacto en decisiones o acciones futuras.

2. Evitar contenido inapropiado: Cualquier contenido que sea ofensivo, discriminatorio, sexista, racista, violento, difamatorio o inapropiado de cualquier otra manera debe ser evitado. El Padlet compartido debe ser un espacio seguro y respetuoso para todos los participantes.

3. Aportar valor: Al subir contenido, se debe tener en cuenta si el mismo agrega valor a la conversación o al objetivo general del Padlet compartido. El contenido debe ser relevante, interesante e informativo.

4. Recuerden firma el contenido al inicio del posteo como título del contenido

5. Mantenerse dentro del tema: El Padlet compartido tiene un propósito específico y se espera que el contenido subido se relacione con ese propósito. Es importante mantenerse enfocado en el tema y evitar la inclusión de contenido que sea irrelevante o que desvíe la atención de los objetivos del Padlet compartido.

# data[].attributes.body
Buenos días a todos, resumiendo el texto , podemos decir que el autor explica la importancia de formular correctamente la pregunta de investigación ya que es la que nos dará o marcará el inicio y eje de nuestro proyecto. La misma debe ser clara, sin ambigüedades y contundente, de manera tal que el lector pueda fácilmente comprender hacia donde apunta nuestro trabajo.Se pueden utilizar como guía para formular nuestra pregunta la palabra FINER que es un acrónimo formado con las palabras en inglés (traducidas) factible, interesante, novedosa, ética y relevante. Otro acrónimo que se relaciona con la formulación de la pregunta es PICOT cuyas iniciales componen, paciente/personas, intervención, comparación/grupo de comparación o control, desenlace o resultado y tiempo.