Literature DB >> 26512217

Database choices in endocrine systematic reviews.

Matt Vassar, Branden Carr, Melissa Kash-Holley, Elizabeth DeWitt, Chelsea Koller, Joshua Day, Kimberly Day, David Herrmann, Matt Holzmann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The choice of bibliographic database during the systematic review search process has been an ongoing conversation among information specialists. With newer information sources, such as Google Scholar and clinical trials registries, we were interested in which databases were utilized by information specialists and systematic review researchers.
METHOD: We retrieved 144 systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 4 clinical endocrinology journals and extracted all information sources used during the search processes.
RESULTS: Findings indicate that traditional bibliographic databases are most often used, followed by regional databases, clinical trials registries, and gray literature databases.
CONCLUSIONS: This study informs information specialists about additional resources that may be considered during the search process.

Keywords:  Databases, Bibliographic; Information Services; MEDLINE; Meta-Analysis; PubMed; Review

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26512217      PMCID: PMC4613378          DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc        ISSN: 1536-5050


  6 in total

1.  Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline?

Authors:  Margaret Sampson; Nicholas J Barrowman; David Moher; Terry P Klassen; Ba' Pham; Robert Platt; Philip D St John; Raymond Viola; Parminder Raina
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey.

Authors:  Victor M Montori; Nancy L Wilczynski; Douglas Morgan; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-12-24

Review 3.  Systematic reviews need systematic searchers.

Authors:  Jessie McGowan; Margaret Sampson
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2005-01

4.  Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis.

Authors:  Christopher W Jones; Lukas G Keil; Mark A Weaver; Timothy F Platts-Mills
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2014-10-27

5.  Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews.

Authors:  Jean-François Gehanno; Laetitia Rollin; Stefan Darmoni
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 2.796

6.  The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews.

Authors:  Wichor M Bramer; Dean Giustini; Bianca Mr Kramer; Pf Anderson
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2013-12-23
  6 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery.

Authors:  Käthe Goossen; Solveig Tenckhoff; Pascal Probst; Kathrin Grummich; André L Mihaljevic; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.445

2.  Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed.

Authors:  José Antonio Salvador-Oliván; Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca; Rosario Arquero-Avilés
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2021-10-01

Review 3.  Specialist Bibliographic Databases.

Authors:  Armen Yuri Gasparyan; Marlen Yessirkepov; Alexander A Voronov; Vladimir I Trukhachev; Elena I Kostyukova; Alexey N Gerasimov; George D Kitas
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 2.153

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.