Literature DB >> 27822149

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

Michael T Lam, Mary McDiarmid.   

Abstract

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.

Keywords:  Database, Bibliographic; Databases as Topic; Evidence-based Medicine; MEDLINE; Review

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27822149      PMCID: PMC5079489          DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.006

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


  6 in total

1.  Locating and selecting appraisal studies for reviews.

Authors:  Hugo Hyung Bok Yoo; Thais Thomas Queluz
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 2.  Consistency and accuracy of indexing systematic review articles and meta-analyses in medline.

Authors:  Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  Health Info Libr J       Date:  2009-09

Review 3.  Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews.

Authors:  R J McManus; S Wilson; B C Delaney; D A Fitzmaurice; C J Hyde; R S Tobias; S Jowett; F D Hobbs
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-12-05

4.  Rationale for systematic reviews.

Authors:  C D Mulrow
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-09-03

5.  Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?

Authors:  Hilda Bastian; Paul Glasziou; Iain Chalmers
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 11.069

6.  An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Edwin Lee; Maureen Dobbins; Kara Decorby; Lyndsey McRae; Daiva Tirilis; Heather Husson
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 4.615

  6 in total
  12 in total

1.  Reply to the Letter to the Editor of L. Liang et al. concerning "Is MIS-TLIF superior to open TLIF in obese patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis" by Tan JH et al. (Eur Spine J, 2018; doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5630-0).

Authors:  Jun Hao Tan; Gabriel Liu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Overlaps of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking in dementia care research: a methodological study.

Authors:  Julian Hirt; Johannes Bergmann; Melanie Karrer
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2021-04-01

3.  Study filters for non-randomized studies of interventions consistently lacked sensitivity upon external validation.

Authors:  Elke Hausner; Maria-Inti Metzendorf; Bernd Richter; Fabian Lotz; Siw Waffenschmidt
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-12-18       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval.

Authors:  José Antonio Salvador-Oliván; Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca; Rosario Arquero-Avilés
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2019-04-01

Review 5.  Comprehensive scoping review of health research using social media data.

Authors:  Joanna Taylor; Claudia Pagliari
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Search results outliers among MEDLINE platforms.

Authors:  Christopher Sean Burns; Robert M Shapiro; Tyler Nix; Jeffrey T Huber
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2019-07-01

7.  Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Justin Michael Clark; Sharon Sanders; Matthew Carter; David Honeyman; Gina Cleo; Yvonne Auld; Debbie Booth; Patrick Condron; Christine Dalais; Sarah Bateup; Bronwyn Linthwaite; Nikki May; Jo Munn; Lindy Ramsay; Kirsty Rickett; Cameron Rutter; Angela Smith; Peter Sondergeld; Margie Wallin; Mark Jones; Elaine Beller
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2020-04-01

Review 8.  Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review.

Authors:  Angela J Spencer; Jonathan D Eldredge
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2018-01-02

9.  Has Embase replaced MEDLINE since coverage expansion?

Authors:  Michael Thomas Lam; Christina De Longhi; Joseph Turnbull; Helen Rose Lam; Reena Besa
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2018-04-01

Review 10.  Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies.

Authors:  Chris Cooper; Andrew Booth; Jo Varley-Campbell; Nicky Britten; Ruth Garside
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.