Where you search determines what you find: the effects of bibliographic databases on systematic reviews

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Seperia B. Wanyama ◽  
Ronald W. McQuaid ◽  
Markus Kittler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Bibliographic Databases

scholarly journals Efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in visceral surgery: an umbrella review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e053851
Author(s):  
Karem Slim ◽  
Flora Badon ◽  
Charles-Hervé Vacheron ◽  
Chadli Dziri ◽  
Thomas Marquillier
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Surgical Site Infections ◽  
Visceral Surgery ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionImmunonutrition (IN) is generally used before major visceral surgery with the intent to reduce postoperative complications, especially infectious ones. However, the conclusions of published meta-analyses are conflicting. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the data of published systematic reviews on the effectiveness of IN.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. This is an umbrella review of systematic reviews comparing IN (delivered orally 5–7 days preoperatively) with normal diet or isocaloric isonitrogenous feeding before visceral surgery performed on any of several viscera (colorectum, stomach, pancreas, liver, oesophagus). We search the systematic reviews included in the main bibliographic databases. To assess the efficacy of IN, several outcomes will be considered: the main outcome is infectious complications (surgical site infections, pulmonary infections or urinary infections) and secondary outcomes are overall morbidity, hospital length of stay and mortality. Identified reviews will be screened by two independent assessors. The methodological quality of relevant included reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. The data extracted from included reviews will be synthesised using the r-Metafor package considering separate groups according to the viscus of interest. Publication bias will be evaluated, and subgroup analyses will be performed according to the quality of studies and preoperative nutritional status.Ethics and disseminationAn umbrella review based on published data from systematic reviews needs no ethical approval. Furthermore, no patient will be involved in the review. Once terminated, the review will be submitted for publication in an open access journal to ensure wide dissemination of the findings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021255177.

scholarly journals The Contributions of MEDLINE, Other Bibliographic Databases and Various Search Techniques to NICE Public Health Guidance

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Levay ◽  
Michael Raynor ◽  
Daniel Tuvey
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Database Search ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Search Techniques ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Health Guidance ◽  
Guidance Development

Abstract Objective – To make recommendations for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on the factors to consider when choosing databases and search techniques when producing systematic reviews to support public health guidance development. Methods – Retrospective analysis of how the publications included in systematic reviews commissioned by NICE on obesity, spatial planning, and tuberculosis were retrieved. The included publications were checked to see if they were found from searching MEDLINE, another database or through other search techniques. Results – MEDLINE contributed 24.2% of the publications included in the obesity review, none of the publications in the spatial planning review and 72% of those in the tuberculosis review. Other databases accounted for 9.1% of included publications in obesity, 20% in spatial planning and 4% in tuberculosis. Non-database methods provided 42.4% of the included publications in the obesity review, compared to 5% in the spatial planning review and 24% in the tuberculosis review. It was not possible to establish retrospectively how 24.2% of the publications in the obesity review and 75% in the spatial planning review were found. Conclusions – Topic-specific databases and non-database search techniques were useful for tailoring the resources to the review questions. The value of MEDLINE in these reviews was affected by the degree of overlap with clinical topics, the domain of public health, and the need to find grey literature. The factors that NICE considers when planning a systematic search are the multidisciplinary nature of public health and the different types of evidence required.

scholarly journals Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review

2019 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Farrah ◽  
Danielle Rabb
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Retrospective Review ◽  
Time Lag ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Common Drug Review ◽  
Database Indexing ◽  
Standard Information ◽  
Publication Time ◽  
Inconsistent Database ◽  
Drug Review

Objective: The research sought to determine the prevalence of errata for drug trial publications that are included in systematic reviews, their potential value to reviews, and their accessibility via standard information retrieval methods.Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review of included studies from forty systematic reviews of drugs evaluated by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Common Drug Review (CDR) in 2015. For each article that was included in the systematic reviews, we conducted searches for associated errata using the CDR review report, PubMed, and the journal publishers’ websites. The severity of errors described in errata was evaluated using a three-category scale: trivial, minor, or major. The accessibility of errata was determined by examining inclusion in bibliographic databases, costs of obtaining errata, time lag between article and erratum publication, and correction of online articles.Results: The 40 systematic reviews included 127 articles in total, for which 26 errata were identified. These errata described 38 errors. When classified by severity, 6 errors were major; 20 errors were minor; and 12 errors were trivial. No one database contained all the errata. On average, errata were published 211 days after the original article (range: 15–1,036 days). All were freely available. Over one-third (9/24) of online articles were uncorrected after errata publication.Conclusion: Errata frequently described non-trivial errors that would either impact the interpretation of data in the article or, in fewer cases, impact the conclusions of the study. As such, it seems useful for reviewers to identify errata associated with included studies. However, publication time lag and inconsistent database indexing impair errata accessibility.

VP30 Evaluation Of CINAHL In Six Systematic Reviews On Maternal Care

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 83-83
Author(s):  
Inga Overesch ◽  
Dorothea Sow ◽  
Elke Hausner ◽  
Nina Peterwerth
Keyword(s):  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Maternal Care ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Reference Lists ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Subject Specific ◽  
Study Type

IntroductionInformation retrieval for systematic reviews (SRs) should include sensitive searches in several bibliographic databases. In addition to standard databases (i.e., MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL), researchers might consider subject-specific ones. In the fields of nursing and midwifery, a SR would typically include CINAHL as a subject-specific database. The aim of this study was to analyze the number and relevance of references retrieved from CINAHL in six SRs on maternal care.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of six SRs (e.g., benefit of intrapartum ultrasound or one-to-one care during labor). The study type was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in all but three SRs. In all cases, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched for primary studies. Further information sources (e.g., study registries and reference lists of SRs) were also considered. The proportion of the additional number of hits and studies included from CINAHL as well as the corresponding number of participants were calculated.ResultsOverall, the reviewers screened 12,013 references from bibliographic databases and identified forty relevant studies. CINAHL contained 2,643 (22 percent) of the references. In five out of six SRs, no additional studies were identified in CINAHL. In the remaining SR on birthing positions, the reviewers included thirteen RCTs of which one was a feasibility study with 68 participants indexed only in CINAHL. This corresponds to 0.9 percent of the women participating in all thirteen RCTs (n = 7,861). However, this study was cited in a journal article on a subsequent RCT that was identified and included via MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov.ConclusionsIt is not necessary to search CINAHL in SRs on maternal care if standard databases and further information sources are considered. An additional study from CINAHL was included in one out of six SRs, a small feasibility study that could have been identified without CINAHL via a subsequent RCT.

scholarly journals Health in pregnancy and post-birth: contribution to improved child outcomes

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Gray ◽  
Debra Bick ◽  
Yan-Shing Chang
Keyword(s):  
Maternal Health ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Maternity Care ◽  
Child Outcomes ◽  
Health Behaviours ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Postnatal Period ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Modifiable Factors

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe the major factors affecting health during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period and outline the evidence for interventions to improve outcomes in women and their children. Design/methodology/approach – Selective review of the literature. A number of electronic bibliographic databases were searched, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and PsycINFO, for relevant studies published since 1990. Papers were restricted to those published in English which presented data from studies conducted in high-income countries, with priority given to systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and other quantitative studies which present a higher level of evidence. Findings – Many factors may affect maternal and infant health during and after pregnancy. Potentially modifiable factors with an evidence base to support intervention include improving diet, and the avoidance of smoking, alcohol and illicit drugs. Good clinical management of underlying illness is also important, along with attempts to engage women in improving health prior to conception and postnatally rather than once pregnancy is established. Research limitations/implications – The evidence base for interventions on some potentially modifiable risk factors is incomplete. There is good evidence of benefit from some health behaviours such as smoking cessation and uptake of breastfeeding and accumulating evidence of the benefit of some models of maternity care. Practical implications – Good maternal health during and after pregnancy plays a key role in giving the child a better start in life. Improved health behaviours are vital but often these are heavily dependent on social context and hence working to tackle social inequality and provide maternity care tailored to individual need is likely to be just as important as trying to directly alter behaviour. Originality/value – Pregnancy and the postnatal period present an opportunity to improve maternal health and have a positive effect on future child health. Greater investment is required in this antenatal period of life.

scholarly journals Locating systematic reviews of test accuracy studies: How five specialist review databases measure up

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (04) ◽  
pp. 403-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue E. Bayliss ◽  
Clare Davenport
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Clinical Chemistry ◽  
Large Degree ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Application ◽  
Search Filters

Objectives:The aim of this study was to examine location of systematic reviews of test accuracy in five specialist review databases: York CRD's DARE and HTA databases, Medion (University of Maastricht), C-EBLM (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry), and the ARIF in-house database (University of Birmingham).Methods:Searches were limited to the period 1996–2006. Test accuracy reviews were located using in-house diagnostic search filters and with help from database producers where databases were not confined to test accuracy reviews. References were coded according to disease area, review purpose, and test application. Ease of use, volume, overlap, and content of databases was noted.Results:A large degree of overlap existed between databases. Medion contained the largest number (n= 672) and the largest number of unique (n= 328) test accuracy references. A combination of three databases identified only 76% of test reviews. All databases were rated as easy to search but varied with respect to timeliness and compatibility with reference management software. Most reviews evaluated test accuracy (85%) but the HTA database had a larger proportion of cost-effectiveness and screening reviews and C-EBLM more reviews addressing early test development. Most reviews were conducted in secondary care settings.Conclusions:Specialist review databases offer an essential addition to general bibliographic databases where application of diagnostic method filters can compromise search sensitivity. Important differences exist between databases in terms of ease of use and content. Our findings raise the question whether the current balance of research setting, in particular the predominance of research on tests used in secondary care, matches the needs of decision makers.

scholarly journals Human responses to nature and culture-based non-clinical interventions: A systematised review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Fairbrass ◽  
Helen Chatterjee ◽  
Kate E Jones ◽  
Dan Osborn
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Science Studies ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Conceptual Frameworks ◽  
Clinical Interventions ◽  
Nature And Culture ◽  
Wide Range

Objectives: A wide range of non-clinical nature and culture-based interventions for the treatment of health issues have been evaluated in evidence and systematic reviews. However, common outcomes of these interventions have not been identified and neuro-bio-psychosocial mechanisms underlying how these interventions impact health are not well understood. We conducted a systematised review and compare the evidence for human responses to nature and culture-based non-clinical interventions for a range of health issues and assess the proposed mechanisms and conceptual frameworks underlying these interventions.Design: Comprehensive searches were conducted up to May 2018 in six bibliographic databases: Campbell Collaboration, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science. Studies included were evidence reviews or systematic reviews on any nature or culture-based non-clinical intervention to improve the health of individuals. Results: 60 reviews were included (33 of nature, 26 of culture, 1 of both) covering 1480 individual studies and trials. The most commonly investigated health outcomes included: general physical health (14 studies), mental health and wellbeing (9), Alzheimer’s and dementia (7), cancer (7), dietary behavior (5), aging (3) and schizophrenia (3). The most common review types were systematic reviews (32), literature reviews (22) and meta-analyses (7). A range of outcomes were common to both nature and culture-based interventions including physical activity, social interaction, stimulation, relaxation, skills development, and positive impact of the intervention environment. Only two reviews proposed conceptual frameworks and the neuro-bio-psychosocial mechanisms that underpin the health changes were not clarified. Conclusions: Future research should focus on reviewing the evidence gaps for non-clinical nature and culture-based interventions with an emphasis on implementing larger sample sizes, cohort and longitudinal studies, which deploy a wider range of mixed methods, quasi-experimental and Randomised Control Trials. There should also be agreement on terminology and developing conceptual frameworks to better understand the neuro-bio-psychosocial mechanisms underlying interventions.

scholarly journals Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in Overviews of reviews: A methodological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Käthe Goossen ◽  
Simone Hess ◽  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Dawid Pieper
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Inclusion Rate ◽  
Reference Checking ◽  
Assessment Reports

Abstract Background When conducting an Overviews of Reviews on health-related topics, it is unclear which combination of bibliographic databases authors should use for searching for SRs. Our goal was to determine which databases included the most systematic reviews and identify an optimal database combination for searching systematic reviews. Methods A set of 86 Overviews of Reviews with 1219 included systematic reviews was extracted from a previous study. Inclusion of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP. The mean inclusion rate (% of included systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking. Results Inclusion of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean inclusion rate 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [89.0–90.3%]). Combined with reference checking, this value increased to 93.7% [93.2–94.2%]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (99.2% [99.0–99.3%]). Stratification by Health Technology Assessment reports (97.7% [96.5–98.9%]) vs. Cochrane Overviews (100.0%) vs. non-Cochrane Overviews (99.3% [99.1–99.4%]) showed that inclusion was only slightly lower for Health Technology Assessment reports. However, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and reference checking remained the best combination. Among the 10/1219 systematic reviews not identified by this combination, five were published as websites rather than journals, two were included in CINAHL and Embase, and one was included in the database ERIC. Conclusions MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking of included studies, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.

scholarly journals Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014

2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. Lam, BMSc(C) ◽  
Mary McDiarmid, MISt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the number of bibliographic databases used to search the health sciences literature in individual systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) changed over a twenty-year period related to the official 1995 launch of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).Methods: Ovid MEDLINE was searched using a modified version of a strategy developed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network to identify SRs and MAs. Records from 3 milestone years were searched: the year immediately preceding (1994) and 1 (2004) and 2 (2014) decades following the CDSR launch. Records were sorted with randomization software. Abstracts or full texts of the records were examined to identify database usage until 100 relevant records were identified from each of the 3 years.Results: The mean and median number of bibliographic databases searched in 1994, 2004, and 2014 were 1.62 and 1, 3.34 and 3, and 3.73 and 4, respectively. Studies that searched only 1 database decreased over the 3 milestone years (60% in 1994, 28% in 2004, and 10% in 2014).Conclusions: The number of bibliographic databases searched in individual SRs and MAs increased from 1994 to 2014.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document