This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • eTable  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Informatics/ Internet in Medicine  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Public Health  • World Health  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Dermatology, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Juan Jorge Manriquez, MD

Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(8):947-948.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

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.

Methods

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 . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Results

AUTHOR INFORMATION


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?