RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) is the main reference database in the region; however, the way in which this resource is used in Cochrane systematic reviews has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: To assess the search methods of Cochrane reviews that used LILACS as a source of information and explore the Cochrane community's perceptions about this resource. METHODS: We identified all Cochrane reviews of interventions published during 2019, which included LILACS as a source of information, and analysed their search methods and also ran a survey through the Cochrane Community. RESULTS: We found 133 Cochrane reviews that reported the full search strategies, identifying heterogeneity in search details. The respondents to our survey highlighted many areas for improvement in the use of LILACS, including the usability of the search platform for this purpose. DISCUSSION: The use and reporting of LILACS in Cochrane reviews demonstrate inconsistencies, as evidenced by the analysis of search reports from systematic reviews and surveys conducted among members of the Cochrane community. CONCLUSION: With better guidance on how LILACS database is structured, information specialists working on Cochrane reviews should be able to make more effective use of this unique resource.
Assuntos
Serviços de Informação , Medicina , Humanos , Publicações , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
The significant increase in scientific evidence production has led to the creation of methods to facilitate evidence review and synthesis. This has turned, this has resulted in the emergence of different designs depending on the reviews objective. Evidence gap maps constitute a novel approach for literature review. They are thematic collections of a broad field of evidence, using a systematic search strategy that identifies gaps in knowledge and engages, early on, the target audience to design a friendly graphic product. Evidence maps are a tool to be considered in the roster of options available for research funders in that they are particularly useful for evidence-based decision-making and evidence-based policy development. The most commonly used formats to display the findings of evidence gap search designs are the bubble plot and the intervention-outcome framework. This article corresponds to the sixth of a series of narrative reviews on general topics of biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. The purpose of this review is to describe the principal features of evidence gap maps, highlighting their main objectives and utility, exploring the most commonly used mapping formats, and comparing this approach with other evidence synthesis designs.
El gran aumento en la producción de evidencia científica ha llevado a la creación de métodos para facilitar su revisión y síntesis, surgiendo distintos diseños según el objetivo principal que se busque cumplir. Los mapas de brecha de evidencia constituyen un enfoque novedoso de revisión de literatura. Corresponden a colecciones temáticas de un amplio campo de evidencia, utilizando una estrategia de búsqueda sistemática que destaca por identificar brechas o lagunas en el cuerpo de la evidencia disponible y por involucrar tempranamente a la audiencia definida como blanco para el diseño de un producto gráfico amigable. Se han establecido como una herramienta a considerar para guiar la agenda y el financiamiento de futuras investigaciones, y como apoyo en la toma de decisiones y en la creación de políticas basadas en evidencia. Los formatos más utilizados para representar sus hallazgos son el gráfico de burbujas y la grilla intervención-desenlace. Este artículo corresponde al sexto de una serie de revisiones narrativas acerca de tópicos generales en bioestadística y epidemiología clínica, y tiene por objetivo describir las características generales de los mapas de brecha de evidencia, destacar sus principales objetivos y utilidades, explorar los formatos de mapeo más utilizados y comparar este enfoque con otras propuestas de síntesis.
Assuntos
Visualização de Dados , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Revisões Sistemáticas como AssuntoRESUMO
The increasing amount of evidence has caused an increasing amount of literature reviews. There are different types of reviews systematic reviews are the best known, and every type of review has different purposes. The scoping review is a recent model that aims to answer broad questions and identify and expose the available evidence for a broader question, using a rigorous and reproducible method. In the last two decades, researchers have discussed the most appropriate method to carry out scoping reviews, and recently the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was published. This is the fifth article of a methodological collaborative series of narrative reviews about general topics on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to describe what scoping reviews are, identify their objectives, differentiate them from other types of reviews, and provide considerations on how to carry them out.
La cantidad creciente de evidencia ha provocado a su vez un aumento en el número de revisiones de la literatura. Existen distintos tipos de revisiones donde las más conocidas son las revisiones sistemáticas, y cada tipo de revisión posee objetivos distintos. La revisión panorámica (o scoping review) es un modelo reciente que busca dar respuestas a preguntas amplias, a la vez que intenta identificar y exponer la evidencia disponible para una pregunta en particular, a través de un método riguroso y reproducible. En las últimas dos décadas se ha discutido cuál es el método más apropiado para realizarlas, siendo la extensión de Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses para Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) la guía de reporte más recientemente incorporada. Este artículo es el quinto de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. Esta revisión tiene como objetivo describir qué son las revisiones panorámicas, identificar sus objetivos, diferenciarlas de otros tipos de revisiones de literatura, y dar algunas consideraciones sobre cómo estas se pueden llevar a cabo.