Abstract
Introduction: Cancer is one of the main public health problems in the world, being the first or second cause of premature death in most countries. Given its magnitude, it requires organized actions to address it, and the use of scientific evidence is a pillar for the formulation of public policies, strategies for disease prevention and control, improvement of clinical practice and efficient allocation of financial resources. The bibliographic search process requires specific knowledge for the management of different sources of information and construction of efficient search strategies. The ONCO Evidence© platform was structured to retrieve technical-scientific evidence indexed in the PUBMED, EMBASE and LILACS databases, through search strategies selectable in different search fields. Methods: The construction of the search fields was based on the research acronyms PICOS and PECOS, including a field for cancer topography and excluding the comparator field. Thus, five fields were created: cancer topography, population, intervention/exposure, outcome and study design. The prevalence, incidence, and mortality estimates from INCA and the Global Cancer Observatory were considered for the selection of cancer types. The technical-scientific staff of INCA was consulted using a Google Forms to select the outcomes and interventions/exposures. The controlled vocabularies Mesh, DeCs, and Emtree were consulted for the populations. Validated filters from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health were adopted for the study designs. The Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies served as the methodological basis for developing the platform's search strategies. For the technological stack, simplicity, learning curve, easy distribution, and progressive delivery were considered. Results: In total, 396 search strategies were developed and reviewed by a second specialist. For the cancer topography field, strategies were developed for the 30 most prevalent cancer types with the highest mortality rates. Regarding interventions/exposures, 36 options were selected, such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. In the outcomes field, 21 options were entered, including: overall survival, progression-free survival, and mortality. The populations included were: elderly, children, adolescents, women, men, newborns, and blacks. Finally, the filters for study types adopted were: systematic review, randomized clinical trial, qualitative study, and guidelines. Five interactive navigation screens were created: home, about, collaborators, partnerships, and contact. To serve researchers from other countries, an English version of the platform will be made available. Discussions and conclusions: The user-friendly interface is intended to enable users to interact efficiently with the system, having their research objectives met accurately and in a short time, without the assistance of a specialist. It is expected that ONCO Evidence© will become a strategic and innovative tool in the field of Evidence-Based Healthcare, as well as a model for similar initiatives in other areas of knowledge and the start of the emergence of an integrated network of platforms focused on the healthcare area.
