Systematic Reviews as process of artificial selection of scientific knowledge in the healthcare area

Main Article Content

Oscar Eliezer Mendoza De Los Santos

Abstract

The aim of this essay is to conceptualize and analyze, from the framework of evolutionary epistemology, systematic reviews as a process of artificial selection of scientific knowledge in healthcare area. Firstly it is analyzed the main assumptions of the evolution of scientific knowledge by natural selection. Subsequently, it is proposed that systematic reviews be considered as a form of meta-research, the latter being understood as a type of research whose object of study is scientific knowledge and its evaluation. Afterwards, it is proposed the concept of Artificial Epistemic Selection to refer to a process of epistemic selection different from the one described by the model of natural selection. Since systematic reviews have as one of their objectives the evaluation of the scientific studies that intend to be included in the review, it is concluded that they satisfy the criteria to be considered as a process of artificial epistemic selection.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Mendoza De Los Santos, O. E. (2021). Systematic Reviews as process of artificial selection of scientific knowledge in the healthcare area: . Noesis. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 30(59), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.20983/noesis.2021.1.9
Section
Humanities
Author Biography

Oscar Eliezer Mendoza De Los Santos, Centro de Investigaciones Económicas, Administrativas y Sociales del Instituto Politécnico Nacional

Estudiante del Maestría en Ciencias en Metodología de la Ciencia. CIECAS-IPN.

References

Bailar, J. (1997). The promise and problems of meta-analysis. New England Journal Medicine, 337, 559-561. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199708213370810

Bunge, M. (1981). La ciencia, su método y su filosofía (1era ed.). Sudamericana.

Bunge, M. (1983). Treatise on Basic Philosophy (vol. 5). D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Bunge, M. (2004a). Epistemología (4ta ed.). Siglo XXI Editores.

Bunge, M. (2004b). La investigación científica, su estrategia y su filosofía (3era ed.). Siglo XXI Editores.

Bradie, M. y Harms, W. (2017). Evolutionary Epistemology. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-evolutionary

Cálves, J. (2006). Modelos de cambio científico a partir de la selección natural: análisis y propuestas. Llull Revista de la Sociedad Española de Historia de las Ciencias y las Técnicas, 29, 221-257.

Carro, E. (2017). La calidad del reporte científico. Apuntes sobre la importancia, protocolos y recomendaciones. Revista de Psicología y Ciencias del Comportamiento de la Unidad Académica de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, 8(2). 1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.29365/rpcc.20171229-57.

Cascaes, F., Valdivia, B. A., da Rosa, R., Babosa, P. J. y da Silva, R. (2013). Escalas y listas de evaluación de la calidad de estudios científicos. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, 24(3), 295-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.36512/rcics.v24i3.438

Cerón, A. (2017). Cuatro niveles de conocimiento en relación a la ciencia. Una propuesta taxonómica. CIENCIA Ergo-Sum, 24(1), 83-90. https://doi.org/10.30878/ces.v24n1a9

Cziko, G. (2001). Universal Selection Theory and The Complementarity of Different Types of Blind Variation and Selective Retention. En C. Heyes y

D. Hull (Eds.) Selection Theory and Social Construction: The Evolutionary Naturalistic Epistemology of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 15-35). SUNY Press.

Edwards, B. (2014). What is the value of a systematic review? Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 23(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.001

Ferreira, I., Urrútia, G. y Alonso-Coello, P. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: scientifc rationale and interpretation. Revista Española de Cardiología, 64(8), 688-696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2011.03.029

Greenhalgh, T, Thorne, S y Malterud, K (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(6), e12931. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12931

Gough, D., Oliver, S. y Thomas, J. (2012). Introducing systematic reviews. En D. Gough, S. Oliver y J. Thomas (Comp.). An introduction to Systematic Reviews (pp. 1-16). Sage.

Ionnadis, J. (2018). Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLOS Biology, 16(3), e2005468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468

Jansen, S. (2017, Fall). Bias within systematic and nonsystematic literature reviews: the case of the Balanced Scorecard [Master’s thesis, University of Twente]. Recuperado de: https://essay.utwente.nl/73771/1/Jansen_MA_BMS.pdf

King, P (2004). La noción de “variación ciega” en el ámbito del cambio científico: una defensa. Diánoia, 49(53), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.21898/dia.v49i53.399

Kuhn, T. (1971). La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Letelier, L. M., Manriquez, J. J. y Rada. G. (2005). Revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis: ¿son la mejor evidencia? Revista Médica Chilena, 133, 246-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872005000200015

Méndez-Bustos, P., Calati, R., Rubio-Ramirez, F., Olié, E., Courtet, P. y Lopez-Castroman, J. (2019) Effectiveness of Psychotherapy on Suicidal Risk: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00277.

Moulines, U. (2011). El desarrollo moderno de la filosofía de la ciencia (1890-2000) (1era ed.). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas.

Murad, M. H., Asi, N., Alsawas, M. y Alahdab, F. (2016). New evidence pyramid. Evidence-Based Medicine, 21(4), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401.

Richards, S. (2005). Filosofía y sociología de la ciencia (5ta ed.). Siglo XXI Editores.

Rysiew, P. (2017). Naturalism in Epistemology. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/epistemology-naturalized

Sampaio, R. F. y Mancini, M. C. (2007). Systematic review studies: a guide for careful synthesis of scientifc evidence. Revista Brasileña de Fisioterapia, 11(1), 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552007000100013

Trochim, W. M. (2007). Evolutionary Perspectives in Evaluation: Theoretical and Practical Implications. 30th Annual Conference of the Eastern Evaluation Research Society, Absecon.

Urban, J. B., Hargraves, M. y Trochim, W. M. (2014). Evolutionary Evaluation: Implications for evaluators, researchers, practitioners, funders and the evidence-based program mandate. Evaluation and Program Planning. 45, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.03.011.

Ursua, N. (1993). Cerebro y conocimiento: un enfoque evolucionista (1era ed.). Anthropos.

Wuketits, F. (2001). The philosophy of Donald T. Campbell: A short review and critical appraisal. Biology and Philosophy, 16(2), 171-188. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006721104642

Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., Kwong, J. S., Zhang, C., Li, S., Sun, F., Niu, Y. y Du, L. (2015). The methodological quality asessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 8(1), 2-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12141