Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
LILACS, the main reference database in Latin America and the Caribbean, contains health literature published since 1982. It includes a network of collaborating centres, located across the region, which feed the database with locally-produced scientific literature and coordinated by the Regional Library of Medicine (BIREME in Spanish). The LILACS methodology developed by BIREME brings together a set of standards, manuals, guidelines and applications, aimed at selecting, describing, indexing documents and, thereby, generating the database. However, the impact of the inclusion of LILACS in the search of Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSR) remains unknown.
Objectives:
- To estimate the proportion of CSR that used LILACS as a source of information during 2019.
- To analyse the methods used to search this database.
- To explore the perceptions of the Cochrane community regarding LILACS.
Methods:
We included CSR of interventions published in 2019. We inspected the search methods section for each CSR and selected those that specified LILACS as a source of information, including specialised registries. After selecting those reviews that mentioned LILACS in their methods, we looked whether their search strategy was available in the appendices. We extracted: search dates, use of basic/advanced search, use of free text and controlled language (DECS), languages (English +/- other languages), use of filters (web-based or validated filter)
Furthermore, we will circulate a survey among key stakeholders: Information Specialist / Assistant Information Specialist / Medical Librarian, Cochrane Review author, non-Cochrane systematic review author, Cochrane Review Group Editor. The survey includes descriptive data, perceptions regarding what they expect from a database during a search, recovery and information management, the reasons for using LILACS and perception regarding documents retrieval using LILACS.
Results:
We analysed 545 CSR (see attached flowchart); only 182 CSR (33%) included LILACS as a source of information; 36 of those retrieved articles through the Cochrane Review Group specialised registry and the remaining 146 conducted independent searches in the database (13 of which did not report the search strategy). An analysis of the 133 reported search strategies indicates that there is substantial heterogeneity in the use of advanced search methods (controlled language, truncation, etc.). The survey was approved by the Cochrane Knowledge Translation Department (KT) and will be sent to the above-described community and will be submitted to the institutional review board.
Conclusions:
The Methodological Expectations of the Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) considers LILACS as a regional database with a highly desirable standard of consultation. This study contributes to the understanding regarding the use of this resource. This input will allow the Cochrane community to establish explicit criteria and guidance on when and how to use LILACS.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: None
LILACS, the main reference database in Latin America and the Caribbean, contains health literature published since 1982. It includes a network of collaborating centres, located across the region, which feed the database with locally-produced scientific literature and coordinated by the Regional Library of Medicine (BIREME in Spanish). The LILACS methodology developed by BIREME brings together a set of standards, manuals, guidelines and applications, aimed at selecting, describing, indexing documents and, thereby, generating the database. However, the impact of the inclusion of LILACS in the search of Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSR) remains unknown.
Objectives:
- To estimate the proportion of CSR that used LILACS as a source of information during 2019.
- To analyse the methods used to search this database.
- To explore the perceptions of the Cochrane community regarding LILACS.
Methods:
We included CSR of interventions published in 2019. We inspected the search methods section for each CSR and selected those that specified LILACS as a source of information, including specialised registries. After selecting those reviews that mentioned LILACS in their methods, we looked whether their search strategy was available in the appendices. We extracted: search dates, use of basic/advanced search, use of free text and controlled language (DECS), languages (English +/- other languages), use of filters (web-based or validated filter)
Furthermore, we will circulate a survey among key stakeholders: Information Specialist / Assistant Information Specialist / Medical Librarian, Cochrane Review author, non-Cochrane systematic review author, Cochrane Review Group Editor. The survey includes descriptive data, perceptions regarding what they expect from a database during a search, recovery and information management, the reasons for using LILACS and perception regarding documents retrieval using LILACS.
Results:
We analysed 545 CSR (see attached flowchart); only 182 CSR (33%) included LILACS as a source of information; 36 of those retrieved articles through the Cochrane Review Group specialised registry and the remaining 146 conducted independent searches in the database (13 of which did not report the search strategy). An analysis of the 133 reported search strategies indicates that there is substantial heterogeneity in the use of advanced search methods (controlled language, truncation, etc.). The survey was approved by the Cochrane Knowledge Translation Department (KT) and will be sent to the above-described community and will be submitted to the institutional review board.
Conclusions:
The Methodological Expectations of the Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) considers LILACS as a regional database with a highly desirable standard of consultation. This study contributes to the understanding regarding the use of this resource. This input will allow the Cochrane community to establish explicit criteria and guidance on when and how to use LILACS.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: None