Browsing by Author "Ávila, Camila"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    COVID-19 L·OVE REPOSITORY IS HIGHLY COMPREHENSIVE AND CAN BE USED AS A SINGLE SOURCE FOR COVID-19 STUDIES
    (2021) Verdugo Paiva, Francisca; Vergara, C.; Ávila, Camila; Castro, J.; Cid, J.; Contreras, V.; Jara, I.; Jiménez, Valentina; Ha Lee, Min; Muñoz, Magdalena; Rojas Gómez, Ana María; Roson Rodríguez, P.; Serrano Arevalo, K.; Silva Ruz, Ivan; Vásquez Laval, J.; Zambrano Achig, Paula; Zavadzki, Giovanna; Rada G., Gabriel
    Objective: COVID-19 Living OVerview of Evidence (COVID-19 L·OVE) is a public repository and classification platform for COVID-19 articles. The repository contains over 430,000 articles as of 20 September 2021 and intends to provide a one-stop shop for COVID-19 evidence. Considering that systematic reviews conduct high-quality searches, this study assesses the comprehensiveness and currency of the repository against the total number of studies in a representative sample of COVID-19 systematic reviews. Methods: Our sample was generated from all the studies included in the systematic reviews of COVID-19 published during April 2021. We estimated the comprehensiveness of COVID-19 L·OVE repository by determining how many of the individual studies in the sample were included in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository. We estimated the currency as the percentage of studies that were available in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository at the time the systematic reviews conducted their own search. Results: We identified 83 eligible systematic reviews that included 2132 studies. COVID-19 L·OVE had an overall comprehensiveness of 99.67% (2125/2132). The overall currency of the repository, that is, the proportion of articles that would have been obtained if the search of the reviews was conducted in COVID-19 L·OVE instead of searching the original sources, was 96.48% (2057/2132). Both the comprehensiveness and the currency were 100% for randomised trials (82/82). Conclusion: The COVID-19 L·OVE repository is highly comprehensive and current. Using this repository instead of traditional manual searches in multiple databases can save a great amount of work to people conducting systematic reviews and would improve the comprehensiveness and timeliness of evidence syntheses. This tool is particularly important for supporting living evidence synthesis processes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evidence synthesis relevant to COVID-19 : a protocol for multiple systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews
    (2020) Rada G., Gabriel; Verdugo-Paiva, Francisca; Ávila, Camila; Morel-Marambio, Macarena; Bravo-Jeria, Rocío; Pesce, Franco; Madrid, Eva; Izcovich, Ariel
    Introduction: The evidence on COVID-19 is being produced at high speed, so it is challenging for decision-makers to keep up. It seems appropriate, then, to put into practice a novel approach able to provide the scientific community and other interested parties with quality evidence that is actionable, and rapidly and efficiently produced. Methods and analysis: We designed a protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). We will search for primary studies and systematic reviews that answer different questions related to COVID-19 using both a centralized repository (Epistemonikos database) and a manual search in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will also search for literature in several other sources. At least two researchers will independently undertake the selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of the quality of the included studies. We will synthesize data for each question using meta-analysis, when possible, and we will prepare Summary of Findings tables according to the GRADE approach. All the evidence will be organized in an open platform (L·OVE - Living OVerview of Evidence) that will be continuously updated using artificial intelligence and a broad network of experts. Ethics and dissemination: No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of these articles will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks, and traditional media, and will be sent to relevant international organizations discussing this topic.