0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Searching the LILACS Database Could Improve Systematic Reviews in Dermatology FREE

Juan Jorge Manriquez, MD
Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(8):947-968. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2009.153.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Well-performed systematic reviews should analyze as many articles as possible to provide the best evidence available. However, some reviews limit their searches only to a few numbers of databases, mainly literature in English, published in journals fundamentally edited in developed countries.1

The LILACS database is an underused source of trials that indexes journals mainly from Latin American and Caribbean countries.2 In the present study, I sought to assess whether including a LILACS search improved the quality of systematic reviews in dermatology.

I evaluated reviews from the Cochrane Skin Group and a sample of non-Cochrane reviews published from 2002 to 2007 in the 4 dermatologic journals with the highest impact factors (Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Archives of Dermatology, Journal of Investigative Dermatology, and British Journal of Dermatology). The first group of reviews was retrieved from the Cochrane Skin Group Web site,3 and the non-Cochrane reviews were found through a search in Medline, according to the strategy described by Montori et al.4 A systematic review was defined as a study that used any systematic way of searching the literature using explicit criteria for article selection.

For the included reviews, we used LILACS to locate randomized clinical trials that matched each review's inclusion criteria using a validated, highly sensitive LILACS search strategy described elsewhere.1 The LILACS search result was classified positive when at least 1 randomized controlled trial that fit the inclusion criteria was found and negative when no such trials were located. The search results were considered inconclusive when at least 1 trial that fit the inclusion criteria was found but it could not be sorted as a randomized one. For the positive LILACS search results, the references listed in the review were checked to determine if the identified articles had already been located.

A total of 44 reviews (25 Cochrane and 19 non-Cochrane) were analyzed. Three of the Cochrane reviews included a LILACS search and were excluded from further analysis (Table and eTable). Twenty percent of the reviews (8 of 41) were restricted to English-language articles and 51% (21 of 41) explicitly had no language restriction.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Numbers of Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Review Articles Found by Search Strategya

The LILACS search results were positive in 29% of all reviews (12 of 41), inconclusive in 34% (14 of 41), and negative in 37% (15 of 41). In 5 of the 14 inconclusive cases, the original review allowed any kind of trial as inclusion criteria. In Cochrane reviews, 18% of the search results were positive (4 of 22), whereas in the non-Cochrane reviews 42% were positive (8 of 19). On the other hand, 27% (6 of 22) and 42% (8 of 19), respectively, produced inconclusive results (references available from the author).

Among the 12 reviews with positive LILACS search results (4 Cochrane and 8 non-Cochrane), only 1 Cochrane review had located the article identified on LILACS by other methods. Therefore, in 27% of the systematic reviews (11 of 41), a LILACS search was effective in identifying new articles suitable for inclusion and not located by the authors.

In conclusion, using LILACS can increase the number of trials potentially suited for inclusion in systematic reviews.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Correspondence: Dr Manriquez, Department of Dermatology, Unit of Evidence-Based Medicine, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, 4686 Vicuña Mackenna St Macul, Santiago, Chile (jjmanriq@uc.cl).

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Manríiquez  JJ A highly sensitive search strategy for clinical trials in Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61 (4) 407- 411
PubMed Link to Article
Biblioteca Virtual em Saúdehttp://www.bireme.br/php/index.php. Accessed January 15, 2007
Cochrane Skin Grouphttp://www.csg.cochrane.org/en/index.html. Accessed January 15, 2007
Montori  VMWilczynski  NLMorgan  DHaynes  RBHedges Team, Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005;330 (7482) 68
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Numbers of Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Review Articles Found by Search Strategya

References

Manríiquez  JJ A highly sensitive search strategy for clinical trials in Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61 (4) 407- 411
PubMed Link to Article
Biblioteca Virtual em Saúdehttp://www.bireme.br/php/index.php. Accessed January 15, 2007
Cochrane Skin Grouphttp://www.csg.cochrane.org/en/index.html. Accessed January 15, 2007
Montori  VMWilczynski  NLMorgan  DHaynes  RBHedges Team, Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005;330 (7482) 68
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Searching the LILACS Database Could Improve Systematic Reviews in Dermatology
Arch Dermatol.2009;145(8):947-948.eTable

eTable -Download PDF (34 KB). This file requires Adobe Acrobat®.
Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

728 Views
1 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs