The Evidence-Based Practice Silent Enemy: Retracted Articles and Their Use in Systematic Reviews

dc.contributor.authorHerrera Peco, Ivan
dc.contributor.authorSantillán García, Azucena
dc.contributor.authorMorán, José María
dc.contributor.authorGoodman Casanova, Jessica Marian
dc.contributor.authorCuesta Lozano, Daniel
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-28T16:48:15Z
dc.date.available2021-06-28T16:48:15Z
dc.date.created2020-10-06
dc.description.abstractToday, evidence-based nursing practice strives to improve health care, ensure adherence to treatment, improve health outcomes, and guarantee patient safety. The main scientific documents that nurses should consult, to obtain the best possible evidence, are systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, this type of scientific document has a major issue if it uses retracted articles that could directly a ect the consistency of the results shown in the reviews. The aim of this commentary is to present the current issue represented by the use of retracted articles in meta-analyses of systematic reviews and how researchers could detect them, through the use of di erent instruments, avoiding them, and providing a reliable SR or meta-analysis that could be useful for day-to-day clinical and research activities. Keywords: evidence-based practice; research methodology; nurses; retracted articleses_ES
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_ES
dc.identifier.locationN/Aes_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12080/24559
dc.languageenges_ES
dc.rightsCC-BYes_ES
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.eses_ES
dc.titleThe Evidence-Based Practice Silent Enemy: Retracted Articles and Their Use in Systematic Reviewses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES

Files

Collections