Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The search strategy was based on a the
Montori’s filter(1) for identifying SRs in PubMed
with emphasis in specificity, and the Ecuador
Cochrane Center strategy).
(see Table 1)
The search strategy covered the period
between January 2008 and March 2011.
Study selection was performed through
EROS, a web-based software to serve
in the initial phases of the SR process.
All retrieved studies were independently
assessed by pairs of researchers, both
by title/abstract and full text.
Identification of systematic reviews in LILACS
Ciapponi A1, Glujovsky D2, Aleman A3, Caccavo F4, Claro García-Atance JC5, Comandé D6, Corbalán Pössel J7, Daray FM8, Eslava Schmalbach JH9, Fernández Toricez A10,
García Dieguez M11, García Martí S12, Gianneo O13, Gutiérrez Castrellón P14, Jimenez Gutierrez C15, Klajn DS16, López L17, Loza Munarriz CA18, Malaga G19, Patrón Sentena C20,
Pinto R21, Rada G22, Rey Ares L4, Rivera Mercado S23, Rodriguez Funes V24, Rodríguez R25, Sguassero Y26, Tisi Baña M27, Abdala V28 1 IECS - Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy. Argentina; 2 IECS - Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Argentina; 3 Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Social, Facultad de Medicina. Universidad de la Republica, Uruguay; 4 Argentine Cochrane Centre IECS, Institute for Clinical
Effectiveness and Health Policy. Buenos Aires, Argentina.; 5 EBM Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile; 6 Argentine Cochrane Centre IECS, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy. Buenos Aires, Argentina; 7 Health Policy and Systems Research Unit, Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile.; 8 3° Cátedra de Farmacología, Facultad de Medicina, UBA. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina.; 9 Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia.; 10 Centro Documentación Conjunto
OPS/OMS y CLAP/SMR-OPS/OMS. PAHO/WHO and CLAP/WR-PAHO/WHO Joint Documentation Center, Uruguay.; 11 Departamento de Ciencias de la Salud- Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina.; 12 Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy. Buenos Aires, Argentina.; 13 Centro Colaborador Uruguay –
Fondo Nacional de Recursos, Uruguay.; 14 Dirección de Investigación y Centro Cochrane. Instituto Nacional de Perinatologia. Ministerio de Salud, México; 15 Subdirección de Evaluación Clínica de Tecnologías en Salud. Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en Salud (CENETEC- SALUD), México; 16 Comité de
Docencia e Investigación, Hospital Tornú, Buenos Aires, Argentina.; 17 Centro de la Colaboración Cochrane Guatemala. Centro de Investigaciones de las Ciencias de la Salud. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas. Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala.; 18 Unidad de Epidemiologia Clinica. Universidad Peruana
Cayetano Heredia, Perú.; 19 CRONICAS-Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Perú.; 20 Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de la República, Uruguay; 21 Servicios Cooperativos de Información - SCI, BIREME/OPS/OMS, Brasil; 22 Department of Internal Medicine. Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile, Chile.; 23 Department of Family Medicine. Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile.; 24 El Salvador Cochrane Division from Central American Branch of the Cochrane Iberoamerican Center, El Salvador.; 25 Health Policiy and System Research Unit, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile, Chile.; 26 Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Argentina.; 27 Clinica Medica. Hospital Universitario Austral Pilar, Argentina.; 28 Servicios Cooperativos de Información - SCI, BIREME/OPS/OMS, Brasil.
Introduction
To identify SR in LILACS by DARE (Database of
Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and by other
organisations criteria
To identify the accuracy of Title/Abstract criteria
to identify SR by DARE
Our search, applying the Montori’s filter, identified 2241 references as potentially eligible SRs
1786 with full-text available have been included in the current analysis
15% were classified as a SR, according to the used DARE criteria, and about 1% when using more
strict criteria (see Table 3)
The accuracy of Title/Abstract criteria to identify Systematic Reviews (DARE) are presented in Table 4
o It is desirable that users have easy access to
systematic reviews (SR) instead of potentially
biased narrative reviews (NR).
o Databases methodological filters are efficient tools
retrieving SRs but do not discriminate them of NRs
also retrieved. Some users’ abilities are required
for this discrimination, through a process which is
frustrating and prone to mistakes.
o Considering the databases limitations to
differentiate them, we organized a collaborative
web-based model to identify SRs in LILACS.
Results Aim
Methods
References
Conclusion
This collaborative model will allow LILAC’s users
to easily access to confirmed SRs by
incorporating labels into LILACS.
The proportion of confirmed SRs out of references
retrieved by Montori’s filter was still low.
Identifying SRs by title/abstract criteria it´s
difficult. Mentioning meta-analysis had 100%
specificity but the positive predictive value it’s not
so high (88%)
Identifying itself as a SR or MA criteria had the
highest negative predictive value (97%)
An improved filter could be developed with these
inputs.
1. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes B, for the Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005; 330: 68-72.
2. DARE. (Accessed 04/08/2011, 2011, at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/cms2web/AboutDare.asp.)
3. Sander L, Kitcher H. Systematic and Other Reviews: Terms and Definitions Used by UK Organizations and Selected Databases. Systematic Review and Del-phi Survey. In: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. London; 2006
Host: VHL - IAHx
Last searched: 21 march 2011
((TW:"revision sistematica" OR TW:"revisao
sistematica" OR TW:"systematic review") OR
((MH:"review literature as topic" OR MH:"meta-analysis
as topic" OR PT:revision OR PT:"meta-analysis") AND
(TW:metaanal$ OR TW:"meta-analysis" OR TW:"meta-
analise" OR TW:"meta-analisis" OR TI:overview$ or
TW:"estudio sistematico" OR TW:"systematic study"
OR TW:"estudo sistematico" OR TI:review OR
TI:revisao OR TI:revision))
T able 2. Definitions of systematic review by criterion
Table 1. Search strategy to identify relevant
systematic reviews in LILACS(1)
Table 4. Tests properties to detect Systematic Reviews (DARE) by the presence of marker
concepts in Title/Abstract
Identified itself as a
Systematic Review
Search strategy
description
Mentioned a
Meta-analysis
Quality assessing
description
Systematic Review
or Search strategy
Sensitivity 0.81 (0.77-0.86) 0.80 (0.76-0.85) 0.14 (0.10-0.18) 0.20 (0.15-0.25) 0.96 (0.93-0.98)
Specificity 0.92 (0.90-0.92) 0.79 (0.77-0.81) 1.00 (0.99-1.00) 0.99 (0.99-1.00) 0.76 (0.74-0.79)
+PV 0.61 (0.56-0.66) 0.40 (0.35-0.44) 0.88 (0.78-0.98) 0.78 (0.68-0.88) 0.41 (0.37-0.45)
-PV 0.97 (0.96-0.98) 0.96 (0.95-0.97) 0.87 (0.85-0.89) 0.88 (0.86-0.89) 0.99 (0.99-1.00)
+LR 9.05 (7.63-10.72) 3.77 (7.63-10.72) 42.66 (16.92-107.56) 20.37 (11.66-35.60) 4.06 (3.70-4,46)
-LR 0.20 (0.16-0.26) 0.25 (0.20-0.32) 0.88 (0.76-0.86) 0.81 (0.82-0.91) 0.05 (0.03-0.10)
+PV / -PV: Positive / Negative predictive Value, predictive Value. +LR / -LR: Positive / Negative likelihood ratio
Table 3. Proportion of 1786 studies meeting each Systematic Review`s criterion
When titles/abstracts were analyzed, the
following criteria were used:
• Identifies itself as a systematic review
• Describes a search strategy
• Describes assessing study quality
• Mentions a Meta-analysis
When full texts were assessed, DARE criteria(2)
an other criteria(3) for quality assessment were
used (see Table 2).
When DARE criteria were met, the study was
classified as SR. Otherwise, it was classified as
non-SR.
Discrepancies were solved by consensus.