22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Indexing of clinical trials in LILACS: Assessment of 721 articles published in cardiology journals Translated title: Indexação de ensaios clínicos na LILACS: avaliação de 721 artigos de periódicos de cardiologia

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract Systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence for decision making in health care issues. One of the first steps of a SR involves identifying all relevant clinical trials on the topic of interest. However, the retrieval of clinical trials in a database partially depends on the article indexing quality. The aim of this article is to evaluate the adequacy of indexing of clinical trials as a publication type in the LILACS database in a sample of articles published in cardiology journals. This cross-sectional study analyzed the indexing quality of clinical trials published between 2008 and 2009 in cardiology journals indexed in LILACS. Two independent reviewers identified and reclassified all original studies published in these journals as being clinical trials or other types of studies. The result of their classification was compared with the indexing publication type produced by LILACS. A total of 721 articles published in 11 cardiology journals were included. The reviewers classified 63 articles as clinical trials; 44 of these were correctly indexed in LILACS, while 19 were indexed as other types of studies (false negatives). The reviewers classified 658 articles as non-clinical trials; 651 were correctly indexed and 7 were incorrectly indexed in LILACS as being clinical trials (false positives). The sensitivity, specificity and global accuracy of LILACS indexing were 69.8%, 98.9% and 96.4% (695/721), respectively. Almost one third of the clinical trials published in LILACS-indexed Cardiology journals are not adequately indexed. The indexing quality of the studies published in these journals must be improved.

          Translated abstract

          Resumo As revisões sistemáticas são consideradas o mais alto nível de evidência para a tomada de decisão em questões de cuidados de saúde. Um dos primeiros passos de uma RS envolve a identificação de todos ensaios clínicos relevantes sobre o tema de interesse. Porém, a recuperação de ensaios clínicos em uma base de dados, depende em parte da qualidade da indexação. O objetivo deste artigo é avaliar a adequação da indexação dos ensaios clínicos como tipo de publicação na base de dados LILACS, em uma amostra de artigos publicados em periódicos de cardiologia. Estudo transversal de análise da indexação dos ensaios clínicos publicados entre 2008-2009 em periódicos de cardiologia na LILACS. Duas revisoras identificaram e reclassificaram, de forma independente, todos os estudos publicados nesses periódicos e compararam sua classificação tipo de publicação com a indexação LILACS. Foram incluídos 721 artigos publicados em 11 periódicos. Os revisores classificaram 63 artigos como ensaios clínicos; 44 desses haviam sido corretamente indexados na LILACS, enquanto 19 tinham sido indexados como outros tipos de estudos (falsos negativos). As revisoras classificaram 658 estudos como não ensaios clínicos; 651 haviam sido corretamente indexados como não ensaios clínicos na LILACS e 7 haviam sido indexados como ensaios clínicos na LILACS (falsos positivos). A sensibilidade, especificidade e a acurácia da indexação LILACS foram de 69,8%, 98,9% e 96,4% (695/721), respectivamente. Quase um terço dos ensaios clínicos em periódicos de cardiologia da LILACS não está corretamente indexado. É necessário melhorar a qualidade da indexação dos estudos publicados nesses periódicos.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews.

          To examine the sensitivity and precision of Medline searching for randomised clinical trials. Comparison of results of Medline searches to a "gold standard" of known randomised clinical trials in ophthalmology published in 1988; systematic review (meta-analysis) of results of similar, but separate, studies from many fields of medicine. Randomised clinical trials published in 1988 in journals indexed in Medline, and those not indexed in Medline and identified by hand search, comprised the gold standard. Gold standards for the other studies combined in the meta-analysis were based on: randomised clinical trials published in any journal, whether indexed in Medline or not; those published in any journal indexed in Medline; or those published in a selected group of journals indexed in Medline. Sensitivity (proportion of the total number of known randomised clinical trials identified by the search) and precision (proportion of publications retrieved by Medline that were actually randomised clinical trials) were calculated for each study and combined to obtain weighted means. Searches producing the "best" sensitivity were used for sensitivity and precision estimates when multiple searches were performed. The sensitivity of searching for ophthalmology randomised clinical trials published in 1988 was 82%, when the gold standard was for any journal, 87% for any journal indexed in Medline, and 88% for selected journals indexed in Medline. Weighted means for sensitivity across all studies were 51%, 77%, and 63%, respectively. The weighted mean for precision was 8% (median 32.5%). Most searchers seemed not to use freetext subject terms and truncation of those terms. Although the indexing terms available for searching Medline for randomised clinical trials have improved, sensitivity still remains unsatisfactory. A mechanism is needed to "'register" known trials, preferably by retrospective tagging of Medline entries, and incorporating trials published before 1966 and in journals not indexed by Medline into the system.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement

            C Begg (1996)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Development of the Cochrane Collaboration's CENTRAL Register of controlled clinical trials.

              The Cochrane Collaboration has established a centralized database of controlled trials and other studies of health care interventions (called CENTRAL) that serves as the best available resource for all those preparing and maintaining systematic reviews or otherwise searching for trials. CENTRAL is available on The Cochrane Library. This article describes the history and methods of CENTRAL's development and the results of an analysis of the current composition of CENTRAL. As of September 2000, CENTRAL contained almost 300,000 citations to reports of trials, contributed mainly by Cochrane Groups and Centers around the world. Development of CENTRAL has been an ambitious, scholarly undertaking and has resulted in a valuable resource: CENTRAL includes citations to controlled trials that may not be indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, or other bibliographic databases; citations published internationally in many languages; and citations that are available only in conference proceedings or other hard-to-access sources.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                tinf
                Transinformação
                Transinformação
                Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas (Campinas, SP, Brazil )
                2318-0889
                December 2017
                : 29
                : 3
                : 311-322
                Affiliations
                [3] Washington Maryland orgnameNational Institutes of Health orgdiv1National Library of Medicine United States
                [1] São Paulo orgnameUniversidade Federal de São Paulo orgdiv1Escola Paulista de Medicina orgdiv2Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Baseada em Evidência Brazil
                [2] São Paulo SP orgnameMinistério Público do Trabalho orgdiv1Ministério Público da União Brasil
                Article
                S0103-37862017000300311
                10.1590/2318-08892017000300008
                db5a9d8c-deed-489e-b9bd-da4f6803a91d

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 19 February 2016
                : 20 January 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 29, Pages: 12
                Product

                SciELO Brazil


                Indexação como assunto,Bases de dados bibliográficas,Ensaios clínicos como assunto,Controle de qualidade,Publicações periódicas como assunto,Indexing as topic,Bibliographic databases,Clinical trials as topic,Quality control,Periodicals as topic

                Comments

                Comment on this article