Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews require the execution of searches for clinical trials (CTs) in more than one database. LILACS possibly constitutes the more relevant database of CTs for Latin American and Caribbean countries. The handsearch of CTs represents the 'gold standard' in the identification of these types of studies.
Objectives: To determine the accuracy of the search strategy for CTs provided by the LILACS interface for a group of Chilean CTs identified by a handsearch. To compare the accuracy of this strategy with the one used in the PubMed Clinical Queries, derived from work by Haynes et al1.
Methods: An analytic survey was conducted, comparing the search strategy provided by LILACS versus a 'gold standard' obtained from the database of the Health Technology Assessment funded by the Ministry of Health of Chile, who developed a handsearch according to the Cochrane guidance for handsearchers. In this search, a total of 44 Chilean journals were analyzed in a retrospective fashion, between the years 1980 to 2002.
Results: We present the values of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios, for the search strategy offered by LILACS, as well as the one used in Clinical Queries, adapted to the LILACS format.
Conclusions: Knowledge of the real accuracy of the LILACS search strategy and the one modified from the work of Haynes et al1, possibly, will be useful for systematic review authors who wish to include this database within their search strategy. We hope to contribute to that.
References
1. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Walter SD, Werre SR. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005; 330:1179-1182.
Objectives: To determine the accuracy of the search strategy for CTs provided by the LILACS interface for a group of Chilean CTs identified by a handsearch. To compare the accuracy of this strategy with the one used in the PubMed Clinical Queries, derived from work by Haynes et al1.
Methods: An analytic survey was conducted, comparing the search strategy provided by LILACS versus a 'gold standard' obtained from the database of the Health Technology Assessment funded by the Ministry of Health of Chile, who developed a handsearch according to the Cochrane guidance for handsearchers. In this search, a total of 44 Chilean journals were analyzed in a retrospective fashion, between the years 1980 to 2002.
Results: We present the values of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios, for the search strategy offered by LILACS, as well as the one used in Clinical Queries, adapted to the LILACS format.
Conclusions: Knowledge of the real accuracy of the LILACS search strategy and the one modified from the work of Haynes et al1, possibly, will be useful for systematic review authors who wish to include this database within their search strategy. We hope to contribute to that.
References
1. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Walter SD, Werre SR. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005; 330:1179-1182.