Revisión sistemática y progreso científico: un argumento desde la concepción noética

• Oscar Eliezer Mendoza De Los Santos ^[1] ; Ennio Héctor Carro-Pérez ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

     Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

     México

     
• Localización: Mutatis Mutandis: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, ISSN-e 0719-4773, Año 13, Nº. 1, 2026
• Idioma: español
• DOI: 10.69967/07194773.v13i.597
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Systematic review and scientific progress: an argument from the noetic account
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen
  • español

    La revisión sistemática de la literatura científica se ha consolidado como la piedra angular de la práctica basada en evidencia. Aun con ello, poco se ha reflexionado con detalle sobre su contribución al progreso científico. De cara a este problema, en este artículo se planteó la tesis de que las revisiones sistemáticas pueden contribuir al progreso científico. Para este fin, se recurrió a la concepción noética propuesta por Finnur Dellsén, desde la que se concibe al progreso científico como los cambios en la información científica disponible públicamente que permite a los miembros relevantes de la sociedad (usuarios de la información científica, como profesionales de la salud) incrementar su comprensión de un determinado fenómeno. Avanzando en esta línea, fue posible esclarecer cómo es que la revisión sistemática puede abonar a dicha forma de progreso siempre que contribuya a hacer más accesible la información públicamente disponible a través de la síntesis de información (v.g. metaanálisis) sobre la base de criterios de valoración claramente establecidos, posibilitando así mejorar la comprensión de determinados fenómenos.

  • English

    The systematic review of scientific literature has become the cornerstone of evidence-based practice. However, its contribution to scientific progress has not received the attention it deserves. Considering this problem, this article proposes the thesis that systematic reviews can contribute to scientific progress. To this end, it draws on the noetic conception proposed by Finnur Dellsén, which defines scientific progress as changes in publicly available scientific information that enable relevant members of society (users of scientific information, such as healthcare professionals) to increase their understanding of a given phenomenon. Following this line of reasoning, it was possible to clarify how systematic reviews can contribute to this form of progress by making publicly available information more accessible through information synthesis (e.g., meta-analysis) based on clearly established evaluation criteria, thereby improving the understanding of certain phenomena.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Alharbi, S., Alrazgan, M., Alrashed, A., Alnomasi, T., Almojel, R., Alharbi, R., Alharbi, S., Alturki, S., Alshehri, F., & Almojil, M....
  • Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. (2002). Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of...
  • Arnold, M., Goldschmitt, M., & Rigotti, T. (2023). Dealing with information overload: a comprehensive review. Frontiers in Psychology,...
  • Bird, A. (2007). What Is Scientific Progress? Noûs, 41(1), 64–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00638.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00638.x
  • Bird, A. (2023). The Epistemic Approach: Scientific Progress as the Accumulation of Knowledge. En Y. Shan (Ed.), New Philosophical Perspectives...
  • Caudy, M. S., Taxman, F. S., Tang, L., & Watson, C. (2016). Evidence Mapping to Advance Justice Practice. En D. Weisburd, D. Farrington,...
  • Chan, M. E., & Arvey, R. D. (2012). Meta-Analysis and the Development of Knowledge. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 79–92....
  • Chevret, S., Ferguson, N. D., & Bellomo, R. (2018). Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No. Intensive Care...
  • Clarke, M., & Chalmers, I. (2018). Reflections on the history of systematic reviews. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 23(4), 121–122. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110968...
  • Dellsén, F. (2016). Scientific progress: Knowledge versus understanding. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.01.003...
  • Dellsén, F. (2018). Scientific progress: Four accounts. Philosophy Compass, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12525
  • Dellsén, F. (2020). Beyond Explanation: Understanding as Dependency Modelling. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71(4), 1261–1286....
  • Dellsén, F. (2023a). The Noetic Approach: Scientific Progress as Enabling Understanding. En Y. Shang (Ed.), New Philosophical Perspectives...
  • Dellsén, F. (2023b). Scientific progress: By-whom or for-whom? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 97, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.11.006...
  • Dellsén, F., Firing, T., Lawler, I., & Norton, J. (2024). What is philosophical progress? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 109(2),...
  • Eden, D. (2002). From the Editors: Replication, Meta-Analysis, Scientific Progress, and AMJ’s Publication Policy. Academy of Management Journal,...
  • Glass, G. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003...
  • Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to Systematic Reviews. Sage Publications, Ltd.
  • Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2019). Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Systematic Reviews, 8(1),...
  • Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European...
  • Hanson, M. A., Barreiro, P. G., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2024). The strain on scientific publishing. Quantitative Science Studies,...
  • Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review...
  • Jabbari, S. (2024). The Pinnacle of Evidence – Systematic Reviews and their Superior Impact and Reliability. Gastrointestinal Oncology: Management...
  • Jansen, S. (2017). Bias within systematic and nonsystematic literature reviews: the case of the Balanced Scorecard [Tesis de Master, University...
  • Karimi Takalo, S., Sayyadi Tooranloo, H., & Shahabaldini parizi, Z. (2021). Green innovation: A systematic literature review. Journal...
  • Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. University of California Press.
  • Lee, I. (2021). Service Robots: A Systematic Literature Review. Electronics, 10(21), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10212658 DOI:...
  • López García, I. (2024). Breve historia de la exobiología desde la figura de Joan Oró Florensa. Asclepio, 76(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3989/asclepio.2024.08...
  • Manterola, C., Asenjo-Lobos, C., & Otzen, T. (2014). Jerarquización de la evidencia. Niveles de evidencia y grados de recomendación de...
  • Marshall, I. J., & Wallace, B. C. (2019). Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research...
  • Meerpohl, J. J., Herrle, F., Antes, G., & von Elm, E. (2012). Scientific Value of Systematic Reviews: Survey of Editors of Core Clinical...
  • Mendoza, O. E. (2021). Las revisiones sistemáticas como proceso de selección artificial del conocimiento científico en el área de salud. Nóesis,...
  • Mendoza-Silva, A. (2021). Innovation capability: a systematic literature review. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3), 707–734....
  • Møller, M. H., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Darmon, M. (2018). Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure....
  • Moosapour, H., Saeidifard, F., Aalaa, M., Soltani, A., & Larijani, B. (2021). The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine:...
  • Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. En O. Zawacki-Richter,...
  • Niiniluoto, I. (1987). Truthlikness. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  • Niiniluoto, I. (2024). Scientific Progress. En The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Springer 2024). https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=scientific-progress
  • Noblit, G., & Dwight, R. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985000
  • 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,...
  • Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887
  • Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press.
  • Quin, F., Weyns, D., Galster, M., & Silva, C. C. (2024). A/B testing: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software,...
  • Ramesh, D., & Sanampudi, S. K. (2022). An automated essay scoring systems: a systematic literature review. Artificial Intelligence Review,...
  • Ritterbusch, G. D., & Teichmann, M. R. (2024). Defining the Metaverse: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access, 11, 12368–12377. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3241809...
  • Sánchez-Meca, J. (2010). Cómo realizar una revisión sistemática y un meta-análisis. Aula Abierta, 38(2), 53–64. http://www.um.es/metaanalysis/pdf/5030.pdf
  • Semeraro, C., Lezoche, M., Panetto, H., & Dassisti, M. (2021). Digital twin paradigm: A systematic literature review. Computers in Industry,...
  • Shadish, W. R., & Lecy, J. D. (2015). The meta-analytic big bang. Research Synthesis Methods, 6(3), 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1132...
  • Shan, Y. (2019). A New Functional Approach to Scientific Progress. Philosophy of Science, 86(4), 739–758. https://doi.org/10.1086/704980 DOI:...
  • Shan, Y. (2023). The Functional Approach: Scientific Progress as Increased Usefulness. En Y. Shan (Ed.), New Philosophical Perspectives on...
  • Simmonds, M., Elliott, J. H., Synnot, A., & Turner, T. (2022). Living Systematic Reviews. En E. Evangelou, & A. Veroniki (Eds.), Meta-Research...
  • Smith, M., & Glass, G. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, 32(9), 752–760. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.9.752...
  • Suchek, N., Fernandes, C. I., Kraus, S., Filser, M., & Sjögrén, H. (2021). Innovation and the circular economy: A systematic literature...
  • Tahiru, F. (2021). AI in Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 23(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/JCIT.2021010101...
  • Van Dijk, S. H. B., Brusse-Keizer, M. G. J., Bucsán, C. C., van der Palen, J., Doggen, C. J. M., & Lenferink, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence...