Using a collaborative online platform to identify systematic reviews in LILACS

A. CIAPPONI

Madrid

Conferencia; XIX Cochrane Colloquium. Scientific Evidence for Healthcare Quality and Patient Safety; 2011

Cochrane

Background: It is desirable that users have easy access to systematic reviews (SR) instead of potentially biased narrative reviews (NR). Databases? methodological filters are good identifying SR but appear together NR. The user requires some ability to discriminate them, which is frustrating and prone to mistakes. Considering the databases limitations to do by themselves we organized a collaborative web-based model to identify SR in LILACS. Objectives: To identify SR in LILACS by DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and by other organisations and selected databases criteria Methods: A search strategy (based on Montori 2005, DARE and the Ecuador Cochrane Center strategies) was conducted from January 2008 to February 2011. Study selection will be performed through EROS (Early Review Organizing Software), a web-based software to serve in the initial phases of a SR process. Pairs of researchers will independently assess by title/abstract considering as eligible for full text assessment if at least describe a search strategy. Pairs will identify SR as detailed in Table 1 and also if a meta-analysis was performed. Discrepancies will be solved by consensus. The search strategy will be run quarterly followed by the described process of SR identification. A filter and label of confirmed SR will be incorporated into LILACS. All studies retrieved from this search will go through the process of analysis and classification, and incorporated into the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database. Results: The search strategy retrieved 1819 references. Results about SR identification and classification will be presented at the Colloquium. The user of LILAC will easily access to confirmed SR. This collaborative model will be extended randomized control trial and other study designs. Table 1. Definition of systematic reviews *DARE: ≥ 4 criteria out of the first 5 (1-3 are mandatory) #Oxman and Guyatt 1991: 1-4 & 6-7 #Cochrane Collaboration, CRD, MOOSE, Potsdam Consultation, QUOROM, AHRQ: 1-4 & 6-8 1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria reported? 2. Was the search adequate? 3. Were the included studies synthesised? 4. Was the validity of the included studies assessed? 5. Are sufficient details about the individual included studies presented? 6. Was the data extraction process adequate? 7. Was the study selection process adequate? 8. Was ?PICO? used to focus the question(s)? *DARE. (Accessed 04/08/2011, 2011, at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/cms2web/AboutDare.asp.) # 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.