El principio del interés superior del niño en los procesos de negación de paternidad e impugnación de reconocimiento

Appraised using PRESS CHECKLIST

Checklist developed by: Sampson M, McGowan J, Lefebvre C, Moher D, Grimshaw J. PRESS: Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2008. Available

from:

worksheet

Search for non-randomised studies

1. Translation: Is the search question translated well into search concepts?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2. Operators: Are there any mistakes in the use of Boolean or

proximity operators?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Subject headings: Are any important subject headings missing or have any

irrelevant ones been included?



Adequate

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Natural language: Are any natural language terms or spelling variants missing, or have any irrelevant ones been included? Is

151



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Spelling & syntax: Does the search strategy have any spelling mistakes, system

syntax errors, or wrong line numbers?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Limits: Do any of the limits used seem unwarranted or are

any potentially helpful limits missing?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________

Uses SIGN’s Observational study filters for Embase and Medline)

7. Adapted for db: Has the search strategy been adapted for each database to be searched?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

Other notes:

Initial number in report is 14. Number in combined total for databases is 14.

Search doesn’t include comparators, but section 5.1.1 of report implies that their plan was only to look for non-RCTs for belimumab.

152 et

Search for RCTs

1. Translation: Is the search question translated well into search concepts?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2. Operators: Are there any mistakes in the use of Boolean or

proximity operators?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Subject headings: Are any important subject headings missing or have any

irrelevant ones been included?



Adequate

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Natural language: Are any natural language terms or spelling variants missing, or have any irrelevant ones been included? Is

truncation used optimally?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

153

5. Spelling & syntax: Does the search strategy have any spelling mistakes, system syntax errors, or wrong line numbers?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Limits: Do any of the limits used seem unwarranted or are

any potentially helpful limits missing?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________

Uses SIGN RCT filter for Embase, Sections of the search for Medline appear exactly the same as the SIGN RCT filter for Medline, but several lines are missing covering relevant publication types and other small differences are noted. SIGN filter may have been updated and the version used here is older? – new publication types)

7. Adapted for db: Has the search strategy been adapted for each database to be searched?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

Other notes:

Initial number in flow diagram in section 5.1 of report is 3774. Number in combined total for databases in Appendix is 3776

In section 5.1 of the report it is stated that 39 full publications and 4 conference proceedings were included, but no details have been given for most of these (only 11 are mentioned in Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4). Ideally we should see a list of all 43 publications in tabular form with clear reasons for exclusion.

154

Search for economic studies

1. Translation: Is the search question translated well into search concepts?

Adequate



Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________

The searches are not as well done as the searches for the clinical effectiveness section. In

Pubmed, the use of title/abstract in the belimumab section of the search strategy has resulted in 7 fewer hits compared to the same sections in the clinical effectiveness search strategy. In Embase several lines include major mistakes resulting in it being unclear how the database would have performed the search. For example, line #1 starts with “exp AND” and includes two EMTREE headings that do not exist: ‘lupus’/exp, ‘sle’/exp. Testing this line of the search by entering it exactly as reported results in 23221 (06/05/11), which is far fewer than the 58059 reported in the search strategy. There are similar problems in the economic filter section of the search strategy.

The search strategies do not include comparators, but they state in report that they do not intend to search for these (is this reasonable?).

______________________________________________________________________

2. Operators: Are there any mistakes in the use of Boolean or proximity operators?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Subject headings: Are any important subject headings missing or have any

irrelevant ones been included?

󲐀

Adequate



Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

155

The basic search in Pubmed for lupus was automatically mapped by Pubmed, resulting in the inclusion of the MeSH heading Lupus Vulgaris. The MeSH heading Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic was not included. However, because Pubmed also searched for lupus in all fields papers with this MeSH heading would have been picked up.

________________________________________________________________________ 4. Natural language: Are any natural language terms or spelling variants missing, or have any irrelevant ones been included? Is

truncation used optimally?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Spelling & syntax: Does the search strategy have any spelling mistakes, system

syntax errors, or wrong line numbers?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Limits: Do any of the limits used seem unwarranted or are

any potentially helpful limits missing? Adequate



Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________

As the numbers found in the subject part of the search were so small for Medline (44 in Pubmed), the use of a filter was inappropriate. It is stated in section 6.1 of report that the CRD sensitive economics filters for Pubmed and Embase were used, but the version used in Pubmed does not match that given in CRD’s NHS Economics Evaluation Database Handbook 2007. The versions of the filter that used to be on CRD’s website are no longer there after the website restructure so it is possible that they have been updated. However, there are some clear discrepancies in the

translation of some elements (i.e.the MeSH heading in the filter exp “Costs and Cost analysis”/ was entered as costs AND “cost analysis”. Fortunately, this was translated by Pubmed correctly, but as well as including the correct MeSH heading several odd combinations of free text terms were searched, such as (costs"[All Fields] AND "cost"[All Fields] AND "analysis"[All Fields] ). Many of the lines in Embase that should have been searching the EMTREE headings were entered

156

very differently and resulted in massively fewer hits (e.g. the EMTREE heading in the filter exp Economic Evaluation/ (which when tested brought back 166263 hits on 06/05/11) was entered as “exp AND economic AND (‘evaluation’/exp OR evaluation)” and resulted in only 977 hits.

7. Adapted for db: Has the search strategy been adapted for each database to be searched?



Adequate

󲐀

Needs revision Provide an explanation or example

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

Other notes:

The initial number in the flow diagram tallies with those in the search strategies.

In section 5.1 of the report it is stated that the 14 excluded studies are listed in section 9.1, Appendix 10, but only 2 are actually listed in this Appendix.

157

In document Necesidad de escuchar la opinión del niño en los procesos de negación de paternidad e impugnación del reconocimiento, como una forma de protección del derecho a su identidad personal, Arequipa 2016 (página 62-65)