PubMed · 11629974
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A M Rutten. 1991. [Not Available].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11629974/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Emergency contraception (EC) has great potential to decrease the incidence and resulting consequences of unwanted pregnancy, including unsafe abortion. We conducted this study to understand EC practices in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We contacted 43 International Planned Parenthood Federation affiliates in LAC to interview them about EC availability. We collected family planning norms and researched registered EC products in LAC. We searched English- and Spanish-language sources to compile EC literature reviews. Thirty-seven affiliates (86%) responded to the survey, and 62% offer EC. Central and South American affiliates are more likely to offer EC than are Caribbean affiliates. Of those offering EC, 96% offer cut-up packets of oral contraceptives, whereas six affiliates offer dedicated products. Of those not offering EC, 79% believe it constitutes abortion. EC availability and support for the method appear to be increasing in LAC, and clearer distinctions between EC and abortion in medical and policy guidelines should increase acceptance further.
Studies examining intraspecific variation in plant species with widespread distributions and disjunct populations have mainly concentrated on temperate species. Here, we determined the genetic structure of a broadly distributed wetland tropical tree, Pterocarpus officinalis (Jacq.), from eight Neotropical populations using amplified length fragment polymorphisms (AFLP). AFLPs proved highly variable with almost half (48%) of the genetic variation at these loci occurring among individuals within populations. Nonetheless, there was a strong geographical pattern in the distribution of AFLP variation within P. officinalis. Caribbean and continental populations fell into two well-defined genetic clusters supported by the presence of a number of unique AFLP bands. Within these two regions, there were also strong genetic differences among populations, caused mainly by frequency differences in AFLP bands, making it difficult to determine the evolutionary relationships among populations. In addition, our analysis of P. officinalis revealed striking differences in the levels of AFLP variation among the eight populations sampled. In general, Caribbean populations had lower genetic diversity than continental populations. Moreover, there was a clear loss in AFLP diversity with distance from the continent among Caribbean populations. The overall genetic pattern within P. officinalis suggests that past colonization history, coupled with genetic drift within local populations, rather than contemporary gene flow are the major forces shaping variation within this species.
BACKGROUND: An unbiased systematic review (SR) should analyse as many articles as possible in order to provide the best evidence available. However, many SR use only databases with high English-language content as sources for articles. Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) indexes 670 journals from the Latin American and Caribbean health literature but is seldom used in these SR. Our objective is to evaluate if LILACS should be used as a routine source of articles for SR. METHODS: First we identified SR published in 1997 in five medical journals with a high impact factor. Then we searched LILACS for articles that could match the inclusion criteria of these SR. We also checked if the authors had already identified these articles located in LILACS. RESULTS: In all, 64 SR were identified. Two had already searched LILACS and were excluded. In 39 of 62 (63%) SR a LILACS search identified articles that matched the inclusion criteria. In 5 (8%) our search was inconclusive and in 18 (29%) no articles were found in LILACS. Therefore, in 71% (44/72) of cases, a LILACS search could have been useful to the authors. This proportion remains the same if we consider only the 37 SR that performed a meta-analysis. In only one case had the article identified in LILACS already been located elsewhere by the authors' strategy. CONCLUSION: LILACS is an under-explored and unique source of articles whose use can improve the quality of systematic reviews. This database should be used as a routine source to identify studies for systematic reviews.