Adherencia a la declaración PRISMA en los meta-análisis de intervenciones experimentales publicados en Educación: una meta-revisión sistemática
Barra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Objetivo: Evaluar la adherencia a la declaración PRISMA de los estudios de meta-análisis sobre intervenciones educativas orientadas a mejorar el rendimiento académico entre 2009 y 2022. Método: Revisión sistemática. Criterios de selección: metaanálisis de estudios experimentales evaluando intervenciones educativas diseñadas para mejorar el rendimiento académico publicadas en inglés o español entre el 1 de enero de 2009 hasta el 30 de abril de 2022. Criterios de exclusión: otros diseños o resultados y publicaciones no accesibles. Búsqueda bibliográfica en cuatro bases de datos (ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus y PubMed). Extracción de datos mediante protocolo previamente elaborado y registrado. Datos: adherencia a las recomendaciones PRISMA, riesgo de sesgos según la AMSTAR 2, y diversas características de los estudios publicados.
Análisis estadísticos: Chi-cuadrado o prueba exacta de Fisher. Como medida de asociación, se calculó las odds ratios y ß, con sus intervalos de confianza del 95% (IC95%) y p-valores mediante análisis de regresión logística y lineal. Resultados: De 2076 estudios identificados se seleccionaron 69. La puntuación media de la PRISMA fue de 19.7 (SD=4.4) sobre 27. Un 51.8% (n=14) de las recomendaciones tuvo una adherencia superior al 75%. Se encontraron diferencias significativas en el cumplimiento de las diversas recomendaciones en los estudios según los autores hayan declarado su adherencia a la PRISMA en 14 de las 27 recomendaciones (51.8%). El seguimiento de 13 de las 27 recomendaciones (48.1%) se asociaron a un menor riesgo de sesgos. La adherencia a la PRISMA se asoció a un menor riesgo de sesgos, a una publicación más reciente, a la educación en el área sanitaria y a intervenciones con actividades físicas orientadas a la educación superior. Conclusiones: La adherencia a la PRISMA en los metaanálisis publicados en educación con intervenciones experimentales para aumentar el rendimiento académico son claramente mejorables.
Financiación: Proyecto de Investigación PID2020-119194RB-I00, financiado por MCIN /AEI/10.13039/501100011033.
Protocolo: registrado en Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PSKN6
Palabras clave: Meta-revisión, Revisión Sistemática, Meta-análisis, PRISMA, intervenciones educativas, rendimiento académico.
Detalles del artículo
Citas
Autor… (2024a)
Autor… (2022)
Autor… (2023)
Autor… (2024b)
Autor… (2025)
Ahn, S., Ames, A. J., & Myers, N. D. (2012). A Review of Meta-Analyses in Education: Methodological Strengths and Weaknesses. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 436-476. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312458162
American Psychological Association Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? Am. Psychol., 63, 839-851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191
Blanco-Blanco, Á. (2018). Estado de las prácticas científicas e investigación educativa. Posibles retos para la próxima década. Revista de Educación, 381, 207-230. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2017-381-386
Cook, D. A., Beckman, T. J., & Bordage, G. (2007). Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: A systematic review. Medical Education, 41(8), 737-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02777.x
Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., & Garside, S. (2011). Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: A systematic review. Medical Education, 45(3), 227-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03890.x
Cullis, P. S., Gudlaugsdottir, K., & Andrews, J. (2017). A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. PloS One, 12(4), e0175213. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175213
Eser, M. T., & Yurtçu, M. (2020). A Review of Meta-Analysis Articles in Educational Sciences Conducted Between 2010 and 2019 in Turkey. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(6), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.280.2
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.2307/1174772
Hederich, C., Martínez, J., & Rincón, L. (2014). Hacia una educación basada en la evidencia. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 66, 19-54. https://doi.org/10.17227/01203916.66rce19.54
Hohn, R. E., Slaney, K. L., & Tafreshi, D. (2019). Primary Study Quality in Psychological Meta-Analyses: An Empirical Assessment of Recent Practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2667. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02667
Holmqvist, M., & Lantz Ekström, M. (2024). A systematic review of research on educational superintendents. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2307142. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2307142
Hong, Q. N., Gonzalez-Reyes, A., & Pluye, P. (2018). Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24(3), 459-467. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12884
Howley, L., Szauter, K., Perkowski, L., Clifton, M., McNaughton, N., & Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE). (2008). Quality of standardised patient research reports in the medical education literature: Review and recommendations. Medical Education, 42(4), 350-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02999.x
Innocenti, T., Feller, D., Giagio, S., Salvioli, S., Minnucci, S., Brindisino, F., Cosentino, C., Piano, L., Chiarotto, A., & Ostelo, R. (2022). Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research study. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 26(5), 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2022.100450
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLOS Biology, 16(3), e2005468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D. D., & Goodman, S. N. (2015). Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices. PLoS Biology, 13(10), e1002264. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264
Javidan, A., Alaichi, J., Nassar, Y., Li, A., Balta, K. Y., & Naji, F. (2023). Completeness of reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 78(6), 1550-1558.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2023.04.009
Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Brannick, M. T., & Banks, G. C. (2013). Meta-analytic Reviews in the Organizational Sciences: Two Meta-analytic Schools on the Way to MARS (the Meta-analytic Reporting Standards). Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 123-143.
Liu, H., Zhou, X., Yu, G., & Sun, X. (2019). The effects of the PRISMA statement to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for patients with heart failure. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 25(3), e12729. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12729
Liu, X., Kinzler, M., Yuan, J., He, G., & Zhang, L. (2017). Low Reporting Quality of the Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Pathology. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 141(3), 423-430. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2016-0144-OA
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Moreno, E. M., Montilla-Arechabala, C., & Maldonado, M. A. (2022). Effectiveness and characteristics of programs for developing oral competencies at university: A systematic review. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2149224. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2149224
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021a). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Page, M. J., & Moher, D. (2017). Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 263, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … McKenzie, J. E. (2021b). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(160). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
Pandis, N., & Fedorowicz, Z. (2011). The international EQUATOR network: Enhancing the quality and transparency of health care research. Journal of Applied Oral Science: Revista FOB, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572011000500001
Panic, N., Leoncini, E., de Belvis, G., Ricciardi, W., & Boccia, S. (2013). Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PloS One, 8(12), e83138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138
Rubio-Aparicio, M., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & López-López, J. A. (2018). Guidelines for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Anales de Psicología, 34(2), 412. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.34.2.320131
Ruiz-Corbella, M., Galán, A., & Diestro, A. (2014). Las revistas científicas de Educación en España: Evolución y perspectivas de futuro. RELIEVE, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.20.2.4361
Sánchez-Meca, J., Boruch, R. F., & Petrosino, A. (2002). La Colaboración Campbell y la Práctica Basada en la Evidencia. Papeles del Psicólogo, 83, 44-48.
Sánchez‐Meca, J., Marín‐Martínez, F., López‐López, J. A., Núñez‐Núñez, R. M., Rubio‐Aparicio, M., López‐García, J. J., López‐Pina, J. A., Blázquez‐Rincón, D. M., López‐Ibáñez, C., & López‐Nicolás, R. (2021). Improving the reporting quality of reliability generalization meta‐analyses: The REGEMA checklist. Research Synthesis Methods, 12(4), 516-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1487
Schalken, N., & Rietbergen, C. (2017). The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01395
Sharma, S., & Oremus, M. (2018). PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 99, 123-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.012
Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., & Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 358, j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
Stang, A. (2010). Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European Journal of Epidemiology, 25(9), 603-605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
Struthers, C., Harwood, J., de Beyer, J. A., Dhiman, P., Logullo, P., & Schlüssel, M. (2021). GoodReports: Developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21(1), 217. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01402-x
Sun, X., Wang, D., Wang, M., Li, H., & Liu, B. (2021). The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A systematic review. Nursing Open, 8(3), 1489-1500. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.767
Sun, X., Zhou, X., Zhang, Y., & Liu, H. (2019). Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Nursing Interventions in Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease: General Implications of the Findings. Journal of Nursing Scholarship: An Official Publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, 51(3), 308-316. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12462
Thornton, A., & Lee, P. (2000). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(2), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00161-4
Urrútia, G., & Bonfill, X. (2010). Declaración PRISMA: una propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Med Clin (Barc)., 135(11), 507-511.
Wasiak, J., Tyack, Z., Ware, R., Goodwin, N., & Faggion, C. M. (2017). Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management. International Wound Journal, 14(5), 754-763. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12692
Yang, Q., Xian, H., Cheng, X., Wu, X., Meng, J., Chen, W., & Zeng, Z. (2024). Methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the association between sleep duration and hypertension. Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02622-0