Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, free accessed in http://lilacs.bvsalud.org/en/) is the most important and embracing index of scientific literature from Latin America and Caribbean (AL&C). Nowadays, it includes around 924 journals and non conventional documents as theses and governmental documents from 26 countries.1 The importance of LILACS is related to the publication, promotion and dissemination of relevant studies considering the AL&C context. In this sense, for retrieving evidences about neglected disease and tropical Diseases - as leprosy, malaria, tuberculosis and dengue – is indispensable to access LILACS database.
Objectives: To compare searching results retrieved from LILACS, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE for neglected diseases.
Methods: We constructed equivalent search strategies for ‘neglect diseases’, 'yellow fever' and 'chagas disease' for LILACS (via BVS), Cochrane Library (via Wiley) and MEDLINE (via Pubmed) (Table 1, 2 and 3). For LILACS, we used English, Spanish and Portuguese term, since this database encloses studies published in all these languages. The results obtained were then compared in terms of number of records. Two authors assessed the records and collected the data.
Results: The main findings are presented in Table 4.
Conclusions: For neglected diseases, LILACS via BVS retrieved a higher number of records than Cochrane Library and MEDLINE and may be considered a valuable source of evidence for these conditions.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: One billion people of the world population has the diagnosis of some neglected disease.2 When evaluating the evidence on interventions to prevent or treat them, LILACS database may enhance the results and identify studies that are not available on a global database.
Objectives: To compare searching results retrieved from LILACS, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE for neglected diseases.
Methods: We constructed equivalent search strategies for ‘neglect diseases’, 'yellow fever' and 'chagas disease' for LILACS (via BVS), Cochrane Library (via Wiley) and MEDLINE (via Pubmed) (Table 1, 2 and 3). For LILACS, we used English, Spanish and Portuguese term, since this database encloses studies published in all these languages. The results obtained were then compared in terms of number of records. Two authors assessed the records and collected the data.
Results: The main findings are presented in Table 4.
Conclusions: For neglected diseases, LILACS via BVS retrieved a higher number of records than Cochrane Library and MEDLINE and may be considered a valuable source of evidence for these conditions.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: One billion people of the world population has the diagnosis of some neglected disease.2 When evaluating the evidence on interventions to prevent or treat them, LILACS database may enhance the results and identify studies that are not available on a global database.
PDF