Escrever o objetivo do trabalho (no ultimo paragrafo da introdução)

- verificar/analisar os efeitos da cafeína no desempenho cognitivo e motor

em idosos

Métodos

Protocolo e registro = não tem como fazer agora

Estratégia de busca = a busca foi conduzida em tais base de dados,
pubmed, web of sicense e psycinfo.
As palavras chaves serão (escrever todas que procuramos, menos oq
zerou – manter as palavras chave e operadores em inglês).
Após a busca os artigos serão analisados de acordo com: titulo, resumo e
texto na integra.

Critérios de elegibilidade
Fazer igual a angélica fez no arquivo q ela mandou no Skype...uso de
medias
1 mantem (só ajusta o ano para 2021) 2 Amostra incluindo idosos com
mci 3 protocolos incluindo os estudos em cafeína 4 uso de medidas cognitivas e
barra/ou motoras 5 preservar essa ultima frase

Rastreamento e seleção
Processo de seleção dos artigos será feito de forma independente
conduzido por dois pesquisadores (JFS and MAS). (manter restante do texto).
Todos os artigos serão revisados em julho de 2021.

PROCESSO DE COLETA DE DADOS

Using a structural form, 2 investigators (AMS, RVP) extracted the following
data from selected studies: author´s name, publication date, country, sample
characteristics, caffeine intake (intensity, time per session, frequency per week),
cognitive and motor results.

Qualidade e risco
 (manter tudo) só trocar as iniciais do meu nome e da angélica e deixar os
verbos no futuro (serão, analisaremos, etc)
Two investigators (AMS, JSF) evaluated the methodological quality of the
selected studies and discrepancies were resolved through open discussion. Similar
to screening and selection process, in case of non-agreement between the two
investigators (AMS, RVP), a third investigator (AEL-S) was asked to solve the
discrepancies. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, which is widely
used to assess the quality of trials in physical therapy and rehabilitation studies, was
applied. The PEDro scale contains 11 questions corresponding to 11 quality criteria:
eligibility criteria, random allocation, concealed allocation, similarity at baseline,
participants blinding, therapist blinding, assessor blinding, adequate follow-up (> 85%
follow up for at least one key outcome), intention-to treat analysis, between-group
statistical comparison for at least one key outcome, and point and variability
measures for at least one key outcome. The study awarded one point for each item
when it was satisfied. The first item is not included to calculate the PEDro score;
thus, scores range from 0 to 10. The suggested cut-points to categorize studies by
quality were excellent (9–10), good (6–8), fair (4–5) and poor (<3) 24.

Incluir a palavra de ENERGETICO nos descritores; ou bebidas

energéticas; ou chocolate.

Olhar o projeto de pós doc e escrever

Qual o potencial efeito da cafeína na cognição (estudos que
demonstraram o efeito da cafeína); lacuna no estudo em idosos na parte de
performance motora; olhar a hipótese que está no projeto de pós-doc; pesquisar
pela atenção melhorada (mecanismo – receptores de adenosina)

Prisma = registro de ensaio clínico (experimento).

Escala Pedro = controle de qualidade do estudo

Revisão sistemática = pesquisa qualitativa

Natureza de pesquisa = síntese de pesquisa (caráter qualitativo)
Revisão e metanalise (são estudos quali e quanti)
 Anotações do skype que a angélica fez na hora

substância, dose, forma de manipulação, frequência de ingestão, duração

Using a structural form, 2 investigators (AMS, RVP) extracted the following

data from selected studies: author´s name, publication date, country, sample
characteristics, caffeine intake (intensity, time per session, frequency per week),
cognitive and motor results.

Two investigators (AMS, JSF) evaluated the methodological quality of the

selected studies and discrepancies were resolved through open discussion. Similar
to screening and selection process, in case of non-agreement between the two
investigators (AMS, RVP), a third investigator (AEL-S) was asked to solve the
discrepancies. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, which is widely
used to assess the quality of trials in physical therapy and rehabilitation studies, was
applied. The PEDro scale contains 11 questions corresponding to 11 quality criteria:
eligibility criteria, random allocation, concealed allocation, similarity at baseline,
participants blinding, therapist blinding, assessor blinding, adequate follow-up (> 85%
follow up for at least one key outcome), intention-to treat analysis, between-group
statistical comparison for at least one key outcome, and point and variability
measures for at least one key outcome. The study awarded one point for each item
when it was satisfied. The first item is not included to calculate the PEDro score;
thus, scores range from 0 to 10. The suggested cut-points to categorize studies by
quality were excellent (9–10), good (6–8), fair (4–5) and poor (<3) 24.