Käthe Goossen1, Solveig Tenckhoff1, Pascal Probst1,2, Kathrin Grummich1, André L Mihaljevic1,2, Markus W Büchler2, Markus K Diener3,4. 1. Study Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Study Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. markus.diener@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 4. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. markus.diener@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to determine empirically which electronic databases contribute best to a literature search in surgical systematic reviews. METHODS: For ten published systematic reviews, the systematic literature searches were repeated in the databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. On the basis of these reviews, a gold standard set of eligible articles was created. Recall (%), precision (%), unique contribution (%), and numbers needed to read (NNR) were calculated for each database, as well as for searches of citing references and of the reference lists of related systematic reviews (hand search). RESULTS: CENTRAL yielded the highest recall (88.4%) and precision (8.3%) for randomized controlled trials (RCT), MEDLINE for non-randomized studies (NRS; recall 92.6%, precision 5.2%). The most effective combination of two databases plus hand searching for RCT was MEDLINE/CENTRAL (98.6% recall, NNR 97). Adding EMBASE marginally increased the recall to 99.3%, but with an NNR of 152. For NRS, the most effective combination was MEDLINE/Web of Science (99.5% recall, NNR 60). CONCLUSIONS: For surgical systematic reviews, the optimal literature search for RCT employs MEDLINE and CENTRAL. For surgical systematic reviews of NRS, Web of Science instead of CENTRAL should be searched. EMBASE does not contribute substantially to reviews with a surgical intervention.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to determine empirically which electronic databases contribute best to a literature search in surgical systematic reviews. METHODS: For ten published systematic reviews, the systematic literature searches were repeated in the databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. On the basis of these reviews, a gold standard set of eligible articles was created. Recall (%), precision (%), unique contribution (%), and numbers needed to read (NNR) were calculated for each database, as well as for searches of citing references and of the reference lists of related systematic reviews (hand search). RESULTS: CENTRAL yielded the highest recall (88.4%) and precision (8.3%) for randomized controlled trials (RCT), MEDLINE for non-randomized studies (NRS; recall 92.6%, precision 5.2%). The most effective combination of two databases plus hand searching for RCT was MEDLINE/CENTRAL (98.6% recall, NNR 97). Adding EMBASE marginally increased the recall to 99.3%, but with an NNR of 152. For NRS, the most effective combination was MEDLINE/Web of Science (99.5% recall, NNR 60). CONCLUSIONS: For surgical systematic reviews, the optimal literature search for RCT employs MEDLINE and CENTRAL. For surgical systematic reviews of NRS, Web of Science instead of CENTRAL should be searched. EMBASE does not contribute substantially to reviews with a surgical intervention.
Entities:
Keywords:
Literature search; Precision; Recall; Surgery; Systematic reviews
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
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Raghunandan Venkat; Barish H Edil; Richard D Schulick; Anne O Lidor; Martin A Makary; Christopher L Wolfgang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Pascal Probst; Phillip Knebel; Kathrin Grummich; Solveig Tenckhoff; Alexis Ulrich; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Beat P Müller-Stich; Jonas D Senft; René Warschkow; Hannes G Kenngott; Adrian T Billeter; Gianmatteo Vit; Stefanie Helfert; Markus K Diener; Lars Fischer; Markus W Büchler; Peter P Nawroth Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Masayuki Tanaka; Max Heckler; André L Mihaljevic; Pascal Probst; Ulla Klaiber; Ulrike Heger; Simon Schimmack; Markus W Büchler; Thilo Hackert Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Felix J Hüttner; Pascal Probst; Eva Kalkum; Matthes Hackbusch; Katrin Jensen; Alexis Ulrich; Jürgen Debus; Dirk Jäger; Markus K Diener Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: E Rausa; M A Zappa; M E Kelly; L Turati; A Russo; A Aiolfi; G Bonitta; L G Sgroi Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-07-13 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Mohammed Al-Saeedi; Muhammed H Barout; Pascal Probst; Elias Khajeh; Karl Heinz Weiss; Markus K Diener; Arianeb Mehrabi Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 3.445