Google Scholar | Citations: 16429| h-index: 32 | i10-index: 482
Mapping of cross-sectional studies at PUBMED on the association between Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and blindness: prevalence study
PDF (Portuguese (Brazil))

Keywords

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
Blindness
Epidemiology

How to Cite

Mapping of cross-sectional studies at PUBMED on the association between Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and blindness: prevalence study. (2020). Electronic Journal Collection Health, 12(10), e4392. https://doi.org/10.25248/reas.e4392.2020

Copyright © | All rights reserved.

The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.

Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.

Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.

Abstract

Objective: To analyze studies that evaluate the association between Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and blindness available at PUBMED, to identify the main publications on the subject and to know the association rates. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analytical study, conducted with 7 observational and cross-sectional articles, selected regardless of language. The selected articles were classified and evaluated, based on the criteria proposed by the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) initiative, which contains items with recommendations of what is necessary to contain in a quality observational study. For each chapter judged, the articles were classified as: adequate; inadequate and insufficient. Results: Of the topics recommended by the STROBE initiative, "Title and Summary" was the one with the highest percentage in appropriate, 92.85%, while "Other Information", where the authors whrite about research funding, got the highest percentage in inadequate, 100% and "Introduction" the highest percentage in insufficient, 28.57%. As for association fees, these were between 2.2% and 60%. Final considerations: It is concluded that there is a difficulty for researchers to organize and expose their funding and that the association fees are heterogeneous, depending on the proposed methodology.

PDF (Portuguese (Brazil))