Estrutura retórica das revisões sistemáticas publicadas em revistas odontológicas: implicações para o ensino da leitura e da escrita em cursos de ESP

Bexi Perdomo; Oscar Morales; Daniel Cassany

Autores

Bexi Perdomo Universidad de Los Andes (ULA) | Mérida | Venezuela https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1611-7743
Oscar Morales Universidad de Los Andes (ULA) | Mérida | Venezuela https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0879-6555
Daniel Cassany Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF) | Barcelona | Espanha https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3494-5531

Palavras-chave:

Revisão sistemática, estrutura retórica, redação acadêmica, odontologia

Resumo

Embora as revisões sistemáticas (SRs) sejam importantes para a comunidade odontológica, uma revisão bibliográfica sugere que, até o momento, não foram realizados estudos linguísticos sobre a estrutura retórica das SRs odontológicas, em inglês. Este estudo contribui para preencher esta lacuna, seguindo uma abordagem integrada dos modelos de Swales e Bhatia e a abordagem da Nova Retórica. Para isso, coletamos e analisamos a organização retórica de 100 SRs no campo da odontologia. Os resultados indicam que os SRs seguem uma estrutura protótipo de Introdução-Método-Resultados-Discussão-Discussão-Conclusão (IMRDC). Isto pode ser dividido em 18 movimentos, dos quais 14 podem ser considerados obrigatórios. Esta proposta constitui um recurso empírico para acadêmicos, clínicos e estudantes de odontologia, aumentando a consciência do gênero discursivo, escrevendo e publicando efetivamente as SRs em revistas odontológicas internacionais.

Downloads

Os dados de download ainda não estão disponíveis.

Referências

AL-RAMADHAN, N. Do systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in the dental literature, comply with the QUOROM and PRISMA statements?. 2011. Dissertation (Doctorate in Dental Sciences) – School of Dentistry, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, 2011.

AZAR, A.; HASHIM, A. Analysing the macroorganisational structure of the review article genre in applied linguistics. Issues in Language Studies, [s. l.], v. 6, n. 1, p. 1-28, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33736/ils.471.2017.

BASSANI, R. et al. Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics. Journal of Dentistry, [s. l.], v. 82, p. 71-84, Mar. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.01.014.

BASTURKMEN, H. A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, [s. l.], v. 11, n. 2, p. 134-144, June 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004.

BERKENKOTTER, C.; HUCKIN, T. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995.

BETTANY-SALTIKOV, J. Learning how to undertake a systematic review: Part 1. Nursing Standard, v. 24, n. 50, p. 47-55. 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2010.08.24.50.47.c7939.

BHATIA, V. A generic view of academic discourse. In: FLOWERDEW, J. (Ed.). Academic Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002a. p. 21-39.

BHATIA, V. Analysing Genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman, 1993.

BHATIA, V. Applied genre analysis: a multiperspective model. Ibérica, v. 4, p. 3-19, 2002c.

BHATIA, V. Applied genre analysis: Analytical advances and pedagogical procedures. In: JOHNS, A. (Ed.). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002b. p. 279-283.

BHATIA, V. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Gender View. London: Continuum, 2004.

BOELL, S.; CECEZ-KECMANOVIC, D. On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews. In: WILLCOCKS, L.; SAUER, C.; LACITY, M. (Ed.). Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. p. 48-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137509888_3.

BOTH, A.; SUTTON, A.; PAPAIOANNOU, D. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016.

CONRAD, S. The Use of Passives and Impersonal Style in Civil Engineering Writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, v. 32, n. 1, p. 38-76, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917729864.

DE CRAEN, A.; VAN VLIET, H.; HELMERHORST, F. An analysis of systematic reviews indicated low incorporation of results from clinical trial quality assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, [s. l.], v. 58, n. 3, p. 311-313, Mar. 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.07.002.

ENTRALGO, J.; SALAGER, F.; LUZARDO, M. Títulos de artículos de investigación científica escritos en inglés: un estudio interdisciplinario. Núcleo, [s. l.], v. 26, n. 31, p. 75-100, 2014.

FOX, R. The Social Identity of Management Ergolect. English for Specific Purposes, [s. l.], v. 18, n. 3, p. 261-278, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00057-4. Disponível em: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)00057-4. Acesso em: 12 dez. 2019.

GARCÍA, M. Importancia y limitaciones de las revisiones sistemáticas en Odontología. 2017. Dissertation (Doctorate of Dental Science) – School of Dentistry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, 2017.

GARDNER, S.; NESI, H.; BIBER, D. Discipline, level, genre: integrating situational perspectives in a new ND analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics, [s. l.], v. 40, n. 4, p. 646-674, Aug. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005.

GRANT, M.; BOOTH, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, [s. l.], v. 26, n. 2, p. 91-108, May 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

HADDAWAY, N.; MACURA, B.; WHALEY, P.; PULLIN, A. ROSES Reporting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environmental Evidence, [s. l.], v. 7, n. 1, Mar. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7.

HIGGINS, J.; GREEN, S. (Ed.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. [S. l.]: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Disponível em: https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Acesso em: 12 dez. 2019.

HYLAND, K. Dissertation acknowledgements: The anatomy of a Cinderella genre. Written Communication, [s. l.], v. 20, n. 3, p. 242-268, July 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303257276.

HYLAND, K.; DIANI, G. Introduction: Academic evaluation and review genres. In: HYLAND, K.; DIANI, G. (Ed.). Academic Evaluation. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. p. 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244290_1.

HYON, S. Using genre analysis to teach in the disciplines. In: FLOWERDEW, J.; COSTLEY, T. (Ed.). Discipline-Specific Writing: Theory into practice. London: Taylor & Francis, 2016, p. 77-94.

IOANNIDIS, J. P. A. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, [s. l.], v. 94, n. 3, p. 485–514, Sep. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210.

JIA, J.; LIU, X. Improving Systematic Literature Review Based on Text Similarity Analysis. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, [s. l.], v. 1069, p. 1-5, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1069/1/012059.

KARAPETJANA, I.; ROZINA, G. Rhetorical structure of the research article in Dentistry. Russian Linguistic Bulleting, [s. l.], v. 3, n. 7, p. 10-14, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18454/RULB.7.40.

KHANI, R.; TAZIK, K. Macro-structuring patterns in applied linguistics research articles; evidence of genre awareness. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, [s. l.], v. 5, n. 1, 139-147, 2017.

KNOLL, T. et al. Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology. European Urology, [s. l.], v. 73, n. 2, p. 290–300, Feb. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016.

KOFFEL, J. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PloS one, [s. l.], v. 10, n. 5, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931.

KUNG, J. et al. From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for EvidenceBased Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance. Open Dental Journal, [s. l.], v. 4, p. 84-91, July 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601004010084.

KWAN, B. A cross-paradigm macro-structure analysis of research articles in Information Systems. English for Specific Purposes, [s. l.], v. 45, p. 14-30, Jan. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.08.002.

LAVIS, J. et al. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, [s. l.], v. 10, n. 11, p. 35-48, July 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308549.

MAJOR, M. P.; MAJOR, P. W.; FLORES-MIR, C. Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality. Evidencebased Dentistry, [s. l.], v. 8, n. 3, p. 66-70, Sep. 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400504.

MASWANA, S.; KANAMARU, T.; TAJINO, A. Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not. Ampersand, [s. l.], v. 2, p. 1-11, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2014.12.002.

MOHAMMAD, H.; GOHARI, I. A Mixed Methods Genre Analysis of the Discussion Section of MMR Articles in Applied Linguistics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, [s. l.], v. 13, n. 2, p. 242-260, Nov. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816674626.

MOHER, D. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Review, [s. l.], v. 4, n. 1, p. 1-9, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.

MOHER, D. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, v. 151, n. 4, p. 264-269, 2009.

MORALES, O. A. Enseñanza de la escritura académica con base en el análisis del género del resumen de la tesis. Legenda, [s. l.], v. 18, n. 18, p. 35-65, 2014.

MORALES, O. A. Los géneros escritos de la odontología hispanoamericana: estructura retórica y estrategias de atenuación en artículos de investigación, casos clínicos y artículos de revisión. 2010. Dissertation (Doctorate in Multilingual Communication) – Department of Philogy, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, 2010.

MORALES, O. A.; CASSANY, D.; DÍAZ, N. A. Propuesta para la escritura de resúmenes y artículos científicos odontológicos. Acta Bioclínica, [s. l.], v. 4, n. 8, p. 34-53, 2014.

MORALES, O. et al. The Rhetorical Structure of Theses and Dissertations in Dentistry: A study in Hispano-America and Spain. Revista Ikala: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, [s. l.], v. 25, n. 2, p. 373-93, May 2020. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v25n02a06.

MULIMANI, P. Evidence-based practice and the evidence pyramid: A 21st century orthodontic odyssey. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, [s. l.], v. 152, n. 1, p. 1-8, July 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.03.020.

MULROW, C. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ, [s. l.], v. 309, n. 6954, p. 597-599, Sep. 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597.

MUNGRA, P. Macrostructures and Rhetorical Moves in Secondary Research Articles. In: GOTTI, M.; SALAGER-MEYER, F. (Ed.). Advances in Medical Discourse Analysis: Oral and Written Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang, 2006, p. 331-355.

PALMATIER, B.; HOUSTON, W.; HULLAND, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, [s. l.], v. 46, n. 1, p. 1-5, Oct. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4.

PERDOMO, B. Enseñanza basada en el género y comprensión lectora en inglés con propósitos específicos: revisión sistemática. Redine, [s. l.], v. 10, n. 1, p. 29-41, 2018.

PHO, P. Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, [s. l.], v. 10, n. 2, p. 231-250, Apr. 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607087010.

POLLOCK, M.; FERNANDES, R.; HARTLING, L. Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, [s. l.], v. 17, n. 48, Mar. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0325-5.

PRINSEN, C. et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, [s. l.], v. 27, n. 5, p. 1147-1157, Feb. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3.

RAHIMI, S.; FARNIA, M. Comparative Generic Analysis of Introductions of English and Persian Dentistry Research Articles. RELP, [s. l.], v. 5, n. 1, p. 27-40, 2017.

RUIYING, Y.; ALLISON, D. Research articles in applied linguistics: Structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, [s. l.], v. 23, n. 3, p. 264-279, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00005-X.

SALAGER-MEYER, F.; ARIZA, M. Academic criticism in Spanish medical discourse: A cross-generic approach (1930-1999). International Journal of Applied Linguistics, [s. l.], v. 13, n. 1, p. 96-114, Apr. 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00039.

SALAGER-MEYER, F.; LEWIN, B.; LUZARDO, M. Neutral, risky or provocative? Trends in titling practices in complementary and alternative medicine articles (1995–2016). Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, [s. l.], v. 23, n. 2, p. 263-289, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20420/rlfe.2017.346.

SAMRAJ, B. Form and function of citations in discussion sections of master’s theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, v. 12, n. 4, p. 299-310, Dec. 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.09.001.

SANTULLI, F.; AGOSTINI, C. The Case against Homeopathy: A Study of the Rhetoric of Meta-Analysis. In: MACI, S.; SALA, M. (Ed.). Genre Variation in Academic Communication. Emerging Disciplinary Trends. Bergamo: CERLIS, 2012. p. 175-198.

SKELTON, J. Analysis of the structure of original research papers: an aid to writing original papers for publication. British Journal of General Practice, [s. l.], v. 44, n. 387, p. 455-459, 1994.

SWALES, J. Genre analysis: English in academic research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

SWALES, J. Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827.

TANKÓ, G. Literary research article abstracts: An analysis of rhetorical moves and their linguistic realizations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, [s. l.], v.27, p. 42-55, May 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.04.003.

TEJADA, H.; CASTELLANOS, M.; ROBAYO, F. Genre Analysis Applied to Two Textual Patterns for an English for Specific Purposes Course ESP. Folios, [s. l.], v. 46, n. 2, p. 145-162, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17227/01234870.46folios145.162 .

TESSUTO, G. Generic structure and rhetorical moves in English-language empirical law research articles: Sites of interdisciplinary and interdiscursive crossover. English for Specific Purposes, [s. l.], v. 37, p. 13-26, Jan. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.002.

VAN TULDER, M. et al. Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for spinal disorders. Spine, [s. l.], v. 22, n. 20, p. 2323-2330, Oct. 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199710150-00001.

VAN TULDER, M. et al. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine, [s. l.], v. 28, n. 12, p. 1290-1299, July 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000065484.95996.AF.

VATHANALAOHA, K.; TANGKIENGSIRISIN, S. Genre Analysis of Experiment-based Dental Research Article Abstracts: Thai and International Journals. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, [s. l.], v. 24, n. 3, p. 1-14, 2018.

WHITING, P. et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, [s. l.], v. 69, p. 225-234, June 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005.

WRIGHT, H. R. Lexical bundles in stand-alone literature reviews: Sections, frequencies, and functions. English for Specific Purposes, [s. l.], v. 54, p. 1-14, Apr. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.09.001.

ZENG, X. et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, [s. l.], v. 8, p. 2-10, Jan. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12141.