Methodological and users' surveys on the use of the LILACS database in Cochrane reviews identified desirable improvements to the database.

BACKGROUND: Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) is the main reference database in the region; however, the way in which this resource is used in Cochrane systematic reviews has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: To assess the search methods of Cochrane reviews that used LILACS as a source of information and explore the Cochrane community's perceptions about this resource. METHODS: We identified all Cochrane reviews of interventions published during 2019, which included LILACS as a source of information, and analysed their search methods and also ran a survey through the Cochrane Community. RESULTS: We found 133 Cochrane reviews that reported the full search strategies, identifying heterogeneity in search details. The respondents to our survey highlighted many areas for improvement in the use of LILACS, including the usability of the search platform for this purpose. DISCUSSION: The use and reporting of LILACS in Cochrane reviews demonstrate inconsistencies, as evidenced by the analysis of search reports from systematic reviews and surveys conducted among members of the Cochrane community. CONCLUSION: With better guidance on how LILACS database is structured, information specialists working on Cochrane reviews should be able to make more effective use of this unique resource.

Anticancer Drugs Compared to No Anticancer Drugs in Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancer: A Mapping Review and Evidence Gap Map.

Introduction: Despite being commonly recommended, the impact of anticancer drugs (ACDs) on patient-important outcomes beyond survival for advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) may not have been sufficiently assessed. We aim to identify and map the evidence regarding ACDs versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced HBCs, considering patient-centered outcomes. Methods: In this mapping review, we included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies comparing ACDs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological/targeted therapy) versus BSC for advanced HBCs. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. Two reviewers performed the screening and data extraction processes. We developed evidence maps for each type of cancer. Results: We included 87 studies (60 for advanced liver cancer and 27 for gallbladder or bile duct cancers). Most of the evidence favored ACDs for survival outcomes, and BSC for toxicity. We identified several evidence gaps for non-survival outcomes, including quality of life or quality of end-of-life care. Discussion: Patient-important outcomes beyond survival in advanced HBCs are insufficiently assessed by the available evidence. Future studies need to address these gaps to better inform decision-making processes.

Treatment with anticancer drugs for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and high burden of cancer-related symptoms. It is necessary to assess the trade-off of clinical benefits and possible harms of treatments with anticancer drugs (TAD). This systematic review aims to compare the effectiveness of TAD versus supportive care or no treatment, considering all patient-important outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. Two reviewers performed selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 14 randomised controlled trials. Chemotherapy may result in a slight increase in overall survival (MD: 2.97 months (95%CI 1.23, 4.70)) and fewer hospital days (MD: -6.7 (-8.3, -5.1)), however, the evidence is very uncertain about its effect on symptoms, quality of life, functional status, and adverse events. Targeted/biological therapy may result in little to no difference in overall survival and a slight increment in progression-free survival (HR: 0.83 (95%CI 0.63, 1.10)), but probably results in more adverse events (RR: 5.54 (95%CI 1.24, 23.97)). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of immunotherapy in overall survival and functional status. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about whether the benefits of using treatment with anticancer drugs outweigh their risks for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. This uncertainty is further highlighted when considering immunotherapy or a second line of chemotherapy and thus, best supportive care would be an appropriate alternative. Future studies should assess their impact on all patient-important outcomes to inform patients in setting their goals of care.

Patients' and informal caregivers' perspectives on self-management interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus outcomes: a mixed-methods overview of 14 years of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Self-management interventions (SMIs) are core components of high-quality care in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to identify and summarise the scientific evidence exploring the perspectives of patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers on outcomes of SMIs, and the key themes to enhance T2DM patient-centred care. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods overview of reviews. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, up to June 2021 for systematic reviews (SRs) exploring the perspectives of adults with T2DM and their informal caregivers, regarding self-management. Two reviewers conducted independently study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We estimated the degree of overlap across SRs. We performed a qualitative analysis using a thematic synthesis approach. RESULTS: We identified 54 SRs, corresponding to 939 studies, with a slight overlap. Most SRs (47/54, 87%) were considered high quality. We developed summaries for 22 outcomes and identified six overarching themes: (1) diabetic identity; (2) accessing healthcare; (3) experience of care; (4) engagement with self-management; (5) outcomes awareness; and (6) challenges adhering to self-management. We found important variability in how patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers value critical outcomes influenced by the disease progression and several contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings represent what matters most to patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers regarding outcomes of SMIs. Our results can facilitate the development and evaluation of SMIs, and guide decision-making in diabetes care, including the formulation of decisions and recommendations.

How Do Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Value the Importance of Outcomes? An Overview of Reviews.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess how patients value the importance of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) related outcomes. METHODS: Overview of systematic reviews (SRs) reporting patients' utilities or disutilities for T2DM outcomes. We searched 3 databases from inception until June 2021. Study selection and data extraction were conducted in pairs. We evaluated the quality of SRs with the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist, and the overlap with the corrected covered area. We estimated descriptive statistics, and, when possible, conducted metanalysis. RESULTS: We identified 11 SRs, including 119 studies and 70 outcomes. Most reviews were high-quality SRs. The outcomes with the lowest utilities were hypoglycemia with very severe symptoms (acute complications), stroke (macrovascular complications), diabetic peripheral neuropathy with severe pain (microvascular complications), extreme obesity (comorbidities), and insulin only or combined (management of diabetes). Good/excellent glucose control and noninsulin injectable showed higher values than T2DM without complications. The outcomes with the highest disutilities were amputation, depression, major hypoglycemia, stroke, and management using only insulin. CONCLUSIONS: We provide standardized, reliable utility values (or associated disutilities) for T2DM, acute, microvascular and macrovascular complications, related comorbidities and treatments that may support judgments when making clinical recommendations, designing decision support tools, and developing interventions and economic analysis.

Approaching the body of evidence: Key concepts of Overviews. / Abordando el cuerpo de evidencia: conceptos fundamentales de los overviews.

The increasing production of primary research and literature reviews in the last decades has made it necessary to develop a new methodological design to synthesize the evidence: the overviews. An overview is a type of evidence synthesis that uses systematic reviews as the unit of analysis, with the aim of extracting and analyzing the results for a new or broader research question, helping the shared decision-making processes. The aim of this article is to introduce the reader to this type of evidence summaries, highlighting the differences between overviews and other types of synthesis, the unique methodological aspects of overviews, and future challenges. This is the twelfth article from a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology.

El aumento de la producción de investigación primaria y de las revisiones de la literatura durante las últimas décadas ha hecho necesario el desarrollo de un nuevo diseño metodológico para sintetizar la evidencia: los overviews. Un overview es un diseño de síntesis de evidencia que toma como unidad de análisis a las revisiones sistemáticas, con el objetivo de extraer y analizar los resultados para una pregunta de interés nueva o más amplia, ayudando así a mejorar los procesos de toma de decisiones informadas. El objetivo de este artículo es introducir al lector a este tipo de resúmenes de evidencia, destacando las diferencias con los otros tipos de síntesis de evidencia, los aspectos metodológicos particulares de los overviews, y los desafíos pendientes. Este artículo es el duodécimo de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica.

Abordando el cuerpo de evidencia: conceptos fundamentales de los overviews / Approaching the body of evidence: Key concepts of Overviews

El aumento de la producción de investigación primaria y de las revisiones de la literatura durante las últimas décadas ha hecho necesario el desarrollo de un nuevo diseño metodológico para sintetizar la evidencia: los overviews. Un overview es un diseño de síntesis de evidencia que toma como unidad de análisis a las revisiones sistemáticas, con el objetivo de extraer y analizar los resultados para una pregunta de interés nueva o más amplia, ayudando así a mejorar los procesos de toma de decisiones informadas. El objetivo de este artículo es introducir al lector a este tipo de resúmenes de evidencia, destacando las diferencias con los otros tipos de síntesis de evidencia, los aspectos metodológicos particulares de los overviews, y los desafíos pendientes. Este artículo es el duodécimo de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica.

The increasing production of primary research and literature reviews in the last decades has made it necessary to develop a new methodological design to synthesize the evidence: the overviews. An overview is a type of evidence synthesis that uses systematic reviews as the unit of analysis, with the aim of extracting and analyzing the results for a new or broader research question, helping the shared decision-making processes. The aim of this article is to introduce the reader to this type of evidence summaries, highlighting the differences between overviews and other types of synthesis, the unique methodological aspects of overviews, and future challenges. This is the twelfth article from a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology.

A methodological review finds mismatch between overall and pairwise overlap analysis in a sample of overviews.

OBJECTIVES: Overlap of primary studies is a key methodological challenge for overviews. There are limited reports of methods used to address overlap, and there is no detailed assessment of the corrected covered area (CCA) of a representative sample of overviews. To describe the approaches used to address overlap, and to estimate the overall and pairwise CCA. METHODS: We searched PubMed for overviews published in 2018. Two authors conducted the screening process. We described the strategy used for assessing overlap, and calculated overall and pairwise CCA for each overview. RESULTS: We analyzed a random sample of 30 out of 89 eligible articles. Eleven did not address the overlap. Of the remainder, most frequent strategies were visual assessment and discussion of overlap as a limitation. Median overall CCA among the included overviews was 6.7%. The pairwise analysis showed that 52.8% of SR pairs had slight overlap, while 28.3% had very high overlap. CONCLUSION: Reported strategies for addressing overlap vary considerably among overview authors. The pairwise approach for assessing the CCA revealed highly overlapped pairs of SRs in overviews with overall slight overlap and vice versa. We encourage authors to complement the overall CCA assessment with a pairwise approach.

Systemic Oncological Treatments versus Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancers: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: We included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87-1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28-1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed. CONCLUSION: SOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making.

Systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a scoping review and evidence map.

PURPOSE: To identify, describe, and organise currently available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) (chemotherapy, targeted/biological therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to best supportive care (BSC) for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and evidence mapping, adhering to PRISMA-ScR checklist. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. We included systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies evaluating SOTs compared to BSC or no treatment in patients with advanced PC. Two independent reviewers performed the screening process and data extraction. We developed evidence maps as an interactive visualization display, including the assessed interventions and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 50,601 records obtained from our search, we included 43 studies: 2 SRs, 16 RCTs, 4 quasi-experimental studies, 20 observational studies, and 1 protocol for a quasi-experimental study. Forty-two studies reported survival-related outcomes and most favoured SOTs, while five reported toxicity and most favoured BSC. Other patient-centred outcomes, such as quality of life, were scarcely reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the current evidence gaps in studies assessing treatments for patients with advanced PC, mainly the lack of reports of non-survival-related outcomes, pointing out research areas that need further attention to make better recommendations for these patients.

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor in diabetic macular oedema: scoping review of clinical practice guidelines recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic macular oedema (DME) is a worldwide major cause of low vision and blindness. Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) constitutes an effective treatment. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are synthesis documents that seek to improve patient care. OBJECTIVES: To identify CPGs that make anti-VEGF recommendations for DME and to assess their reporting quality and their considerations when making recommendations. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: CPGs published between December 2009 and December 2019 that make explicit anti-VEGF recommendations in DME. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Sensitive search strategy in Embase, Google Scholar and hand-searching on 165 websites. METHODS: We extracted information from each CPG with a previously piloted sheet. Two independent authors applied theAppraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation tool (AGREE-II) assessment for each CPG. RESULTS: The 21 included CPGs recommend anti-VEGF for DME, but there is a wide variation among the clinical aspects included, such as location of DME, visual acuity required, therapeutical alternatives or discontinuation. Most have a poor quality of reporting based on the AGREE-II tool assessment, especially those developed by ophthalmological societies, those that have an exclusive content about DME, and those where most of their authors disclose conflict of interest (COI) with pharmaceutical industry or where their authors did not report COIs. Pharmaceutical-sponsored CPGs did not use systematic reviews (SRs) to support their recommendations. Very few recommendations consider patient values and preferences, equity, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the CPGs that made recommendations of anti-VEGF for DME have poor quality of reporting, do not use SRs and do not consider patients' values and preferences.

Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions to prevent adverse events in the intensive care unit: A review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Different types of interventions have been assessed for the prevention of adverse events. However, determining which patient-safety practice is most effective can be challenging when there is no systematised evidence synthesis. An overview following the best methodological standards can provide the best reliable integrative evidence. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to provide an overview of effectiveness nonpharmacological interventions aimed at preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit. METHODS: A review of systematic reviews (SRs) was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA recommendations. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched for SRs published until March 2022. Two reviewers independently assessed the study's quality, using AMSTAR-2, and extracted data on intervention characteristics and effect on prevention of adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-seven SRs were included, and 27 nonpharmacological interventions were identified to prevent 11 adverse events. Most of the reviews had critically low methodological quality. Among all the identified interventions, subglottic secretion drainage, semirecumbent position, and kinetic bed therapy were effective in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia; the use of earplugs, early mobilisation, family participation, and music in reducing delirium; physical rehabilitation in improving muscle strength; use of respiratory support in preventing reintubation; the use of a computerised physician order entry system in reducing risk of medication errors; and the use of heated water humidifier was effective in reducing artificial airway occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: Some nonpharmacological interventions reduced adverse events in the intensive care setting. These findings should be interpreted carefully due to the low methodological quality. SRs on preventing adverse events in the intensive care unit should adhere to quality assessment tools so that best evidence can be used in decision-making.

Systematic reviews: Key concepts for health professionals. / Revisiones sistemáticas: conceptos clave para profesionales de la salud.

The exponential growth of currently available evidence has made it necessary to collect, filter, critically appraise, and synthesize biomedical information to keep up to date. In this sense, systematic reviews are a helpful tool and can be reliable sources to assist in evidence-based decision-making. Systematic reviews are defined as secondary research or syntheses of evidence focused on a specific question that -- based on a structured methodology -- make it possible to identify, select, critically appraise, and summarize findings from relevant studies. Systematic reviews have several potential advantages, such as minimizing biases or obtaining more accurate results. The reliability of the evidence presented in systematic reviews is determined, amongst other factors, by the quality of their methodology and the included studies. To conduct a systematic review, a series of steps must be followed: the formulation of a research question using the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes (PICO) format; an exhaustive literature search; the selection of relevant studies; the critical appraisal of the data obtained from the included studies; the synthesis of results, often using statistical methods (meta-analysis); and finally, estimating the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. In this methodological note, we will define the basic concepts of systematic reviews, their methods, and their limitations.

El crecimiento exponencial de evidencia disponible actualmente ha hecho necesario recopilar, filtrar, valorar críticamente y sintetizar la información biomédica para mantenerse actualizado. En este sentido, las revisiones sistemáticas constituyen una herramienta útil y pueden ser fuentes confiables para asistir a la toma de decisiones basadas en evidencia. Definimos como revisiones sistemáticas a aquellas investigaciones secundarias o síntesis de evidencia focalizadas en una pregunta específica que, a partir de una metodología estructurada, permiten identificar, seleccionar, valorar críticamente y resumir los hallazgos de estudios relevantes. Las revisiones sistemáticas presentan varias ventajas potenciales, tales como la minimización de sesgos o la obtención de resultados de mayor precisión. La confiabilidad de la evidencia presentada en las revisiones sistemáticas está determinada, entre otros factores, por su calidad metodológica, pero también por la calidad de los estudios incluidos. Para realizar una revisión sistemática, se debe seguir una serie de pasos que incluyen la formulación de una pregunta de investigación a partir del formato PICO; una búsqueda bibliográfica exhaustiva; la selección de los estudios relevantes; la valoración crítica de los datos obtenidos a partir de los estudios incluidos; la síntesis de resultados, a menudo mediante métodos estadísticos (metanálisis); y finalmente una estimación de la certeza de evidencia para cada desenlace. En esta nota metodológica definiremos los conceptos básicos sobre revisiones sistemáticas, sus métodos y sus limitaciones.

Revisiones sistemáticas: conceptos clave para profesionales de la salud / Systematic reviews: Key concepts for health professionals

El crecimiento exponencial de evidencia disponible actualmente ha hecho necesario recopilar, filtrar, valorar críticamente y sintetizar la información biomédica para mantenerse actualizado. En este sentido, las revisiones sistemáticas constituyen una herramienta útil y pueden ser fuentes confiables para asistir a la toma de decisiones basadas en evidencia. Definimos como revisiones sistemáticas a aquellas investigaciones secundarias o síntesis de evidencia focalizadas en una pregunta específica que, a partir de una metodología estructurada, permiten identificar, seleccionar, valorar críticamente y resumir los hallazgos de estudios relevantes. Las revisiones sistemáticas presentan varias ventajas potenciales, tales como la minimización de sesgos o la obtención de resultados de mayor precisión. La confiabilidad de la evidencia presentada en las revisiones sistemáticas está determinada, entre otros factores, por su calidad metodológica, pero también por la calidad de los estudios incluidos. Para realizar una revisión sistemática, se debe seguir una serie de pasos que incluyen la formulación de una pregunta de investigación a partir del formato PICO; una búsqueda bibliográfica exhaustiva; la selección de los estudios relevantes; la valoración crítica de los datos obtenidos a partir de los estudios incluidos; la síntesis de resultados, a menudo mediante métodos estadísticos (metanálisis); y finalmente una estimación de la certeza de evidencia para cada desenlace. En esta nota metodológica definiremos los conceptos básicos sobre revisiones sistemáticas, sus métodos y sus limitaciones.

The exponential growth of currently available evidence has made it necessary to collect, filter, critically appraise, and synthesize biomedical information to keep up to date. In this sense, systematic reviews are a helpful tool and can be reliable sources to assist in evidence-based decision-making. Systematic reviews are defined as secondary research or syntheses of evidence focused on a specific question that -- based on a structured methodology -- make it possible to identify, select, critically appraise, and summarize findings from relevant studies. Systematic reviews have several potential advantages, such as minimizing biases or obtaining more accurate results. The reliability of the evidence presented in systematic reviews is determined, amongst other factors, by the quality of their methodology and the included studies. To conduct a systematic review, a series of steps must be followed: the formulation of a research question using the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes (PICO) format; an exhaustive literature search; the selection of relevant studies; the critical appraisal of the data obtained from the included studies; the synthesis of results, often using statistical methods (meta-analysis); and finally, estimating the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. In this methodological note, we will define the basic concepts of systematic reviews, their methods, and their limitations.

Impacto en la salud mental en residentes de tres programas de especialización médica de la Universidad de Valparaíso durante la pandemia por COVID-19 / Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of residents of three specialty medical programs

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic disturbed mental health of healthcare personnel. Residents of the specialization programs could be at risk, since they were reassigned in their functions. Aim: To describe the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on symptoms of depression, stress, anxiety and resilient coping in residents of Anesthesiology, Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine MATERIAL AND METHODS: Residents were invited to answer an online survey containing the DASS-21 scale for anxiety, stress and depression symptoms and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) for resilience skills. RESULTS: Fifty four out of 90 residents answered the survey. Eighteen to 24% of respondents had symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress at severe and extremely severe levels. Those with severe and extremely severe symptoms had also the lowest score on the BRCS resilience scale. We did not find an association between severity of symptoms and gender. Discussion: A proportion of respondent residents had severe psychological symptoms and lower resilience scores during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mapping Chilean clinical research: a protocol for a scoping review and multiple evidence gap maps.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical research broadly aims to influence decision-making in order to promote appropriate healthcare. Funding agencies should prioritise research projects according to needed research topics, methodological and cost-effectiveness considerations, and expected social value. In Chile, there is no local diagnosis regarding recent clinical research that might inform prioritisation for future research funding. This research aims to comprehensively identify and classify Chilean health research studies, elaborating evidence gap maps for the most burdensome local conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS and WoS) and perform hand searches to retrieve, identify and classify health research studies conducted in Chile or by authors whose affiliations are based in Chile, from 2000 onwards. We will elaborate evidence matrices for the 20 conditions with the highest burden in Chile (according to the Global Burden of Disease 2019) selected from those defined under the General Regime of the Health Guarantees Act. To elaborate the evidence gap maps, we will consider prioritised interventions and core outcome sets. To identify knowledge gaps and estimate redundant research, we will contrast these gap maps with the available international evidence of high or moderate certainty of evidence, for each specific clinical question. For this purpose, we will search systematic reviews using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required to conduct this project. We will submit our results in both peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. We will aim to disseminate our findings through different academic platforms, social media, local press, among others. The final results will be communicated to local funding agencies and government stakeholders. DISCUSSION: We aim to provide an accurate and up-to-date picture of the research gaps-to be filled by new future findings-and the identification of redundant research, which will constitute relevant information for local decision-makers.

Evaluación de la terapia de reproducción médicamente asistida en 9 años: estudio de cohorte retrospectivo / Medically assisted reproductive therapy assessment in 9 years: retrospective cohort study

OBJETIVO: Describir las tasas de recién nacidos vivos (RNV) y embarazo de la terapia de reproducción médicamente asistida de baja complejidad del Centro de Reproducción Humana de la Universidad de Valparaíso, Chile. MÉTODO: Estudio retrospectivo de todos los ciclos de estimulación ovárica controlada con inseminación intrauterina (IIU) completados, entre los años 2011 y 2019. Se evaluaron las características clínicas basales y los resultados en IIU homólogas y heterólogas según el ciclo inseminado, la causa de infertilidad, el rango etario y el índice de masa corporal (IMC). El desenlace principal fue la tasa de RNV por ciclo inseminado. RESULTADOS: Se estudiaron 1415 ciclos en 700 parejas. La tasa acumulativa de RNV fue del 19,6%, un 18,3% en IIU homóloga y un 39,0% en IIU heteróloga. La tasa de RNV fue del 10,0% al primer ciclo, del 5,8% al segundo ciclo y del 3,7% al tercer o más ciclos. Al separar por IIU heteróloga, esta aumenta al 24,4% al primer ciclo y al 14,6% al segundo ciclo. La tasa de RNV es significativamente mejor en pacientes menores de 35 años (23,7%) y con IMC < 29 (20,8%). CONCLUSIONES: El tratamiento de baja complejidad en pacientes infértiles es una opción terapéutica vigente con una aceptable tasa de RNV por ciclo inseminado. Los resultados están influenciados por la edad y por el IMC.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rates of live newborns (LNB) and pregnancy of the low complexity therapy of the Centre for Human Reproduction of Universidad de Valparaíso, Chile. METHOD: Retrospective study of all cycles of controlled ovarian stimulation with intrauterine insemination (IUI) completed between 2011-2019. The baseline clinical characteristics and results in homologous and heterologous IUI were evaluated according to inseminated cycle, cause of infertility, age range and body mass index (BMI). The main outcome was rate of LNB per inseminated cycle. RESULTS: 1415 cycles were studied in 700 couples. The cumulative rate of LNB was 19.6%, 18.3% in homologous IUI and 39.0% in heterologous IUI. The LNB rate was 10.0% at the first cycle, 5.8% at the second cycle, 3.7% at the third or more cycles. When separating by heterologous IUI, it increases to 24.4% in the first cycle and 14.6% in the second cycle. The LNB rate is significantly better in patients under 35 years of age (23.7%) and with a BMI less than 29 (20.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of low complexity in selected infertile patients is a current therapeutic option with an acceptable rate of LNB per inseminated cycle. The results are influenced by age and BMI.

Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews: GROOVE tool.

Overlap of primary studies among systematic reviews (SRs) is one of the main methodological challenges when conducting overviews. If not assessed properly, overlapped primary studies may mislead findings, since they may have a major influence either in qualitative analyses or in statistical weight. Moreover, overlapping SRs may represent the existence of duplicated efforts. Matrices of evidence and the calculation of the overall corrected covered area (CCA) are appropriate methods to address this issue, but they seem to be not comprehensive enough. In this article we present Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews (GROOVE), an easy-to-use tool for overview authors. Starting from a matrix of evidence, GROOVE provides the number of included primary studies and SRs included in the matrix; the absolute number of overlapped and non-overlapped primary studies; and an overall CCA assessment. The tool also provides a detailed CCA assessment for each possible pair of SRs (or "nodes"), with a graphical and easy-to-read representation of these results. Additionally, it includes an advanced optional usage, incorporating structural missingness in the matrix. In this article, we show the details about how to use GROOVE, what results it achieves and how the tool obtains these results. GROOVE is intended to improve the overlap assessment by making it easier, faster, and more friendly for both authors and readers. The tool is freely available at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/U2MS4 and https://es.cochrane.org/es/groovetool.