Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit1, Irma Klerings2, Gernot Wagner2, Thomas L Heise3, Andreea I Dobrescu4, Susan Armijo-Olivo5, Jan M Stratil6, Emma Persad2, Stefan K Lhachimi3, Megan G Van Noord7, Tarquin Mittermayr8, Hajo Zeeb9, Lars Hemkens10, Gerald Gartlehner11. 1. Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria. Electronic address: barbara.nussbaumer-streit@donau-uni.ac.at. 2. Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria. 3. Research Group for Evidence-Based Public Health, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany; Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research - IPP, Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. 4. Genetics Department, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania. 5. Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta & Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 6. Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. 7. Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives, Durham, NC, USA. 8. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Vienna, Austria. 9. Department for Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany. 10. Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 11. Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria; RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of abbreviated literature searches on evidence syntheses conclusions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews of clinical interventions and repeated literature searches using 14 abbreviated approaches (combinations of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with and without searches of reference lists). If abbreviated searches missed included studies, we recalculated meta-analyses. Cochrane authors determined whether the new evidence base would change conclusions. We assessed the noninferiority of abbreviated searches allowing for a maximum of 10% changed conclusions. RESULTS: We conducted 840 abbreviated literature searches. Noninferiority varied based on the definition of "changed conclusion". When the reduction of the certainty of a conclusion was of concern, all abbreviated searches were inferior. Searching Embase only rendered the greatest proportion of changed conclusions (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%-40%); combining MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with searches of references lists the lowest (8%, 95% CI 3%-18%). When falsely reaching an opposite conclusion was of concern, combining one database with another or with searches of reference lists was noninferior to comprehensive searches (2%, 95% CI: 0%-9%). CONCLUSION: If decision-makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high certainty require comprehensive searches.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of abbreviated literature searches on evidence syntheses conclusions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews of clinical interventions and repeated literature searches using 14 abbreviated approaches (combinations of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with and without searches of reference lists). If abbreviated searches missed included studies, we recalculated meta-analyses. Cochrane authors determined whether the new evidence base would change conclusions. We assessed the noninferiority of abbreviated searches allowing for a maximum of 10% changed conclusions. RESULTS: We conducted 840 abbreviated literature searches. Noninferiority varied based on the definition of "changed conclusion". When the reduction of the certainty of a conclusion was of concern, all abbreviated searches were inferior. Searching Embase only rendered the greatest proportion of changed conclusions (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%-40%); combining MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with searches of references lists the lowest (8%, 95% CI 3%-18%). When falsely reaching an opposite conclusion was of concern, combining one database with another or with searches of reference lists was noninferior to comprehensive searches (2%, 95% CI: 0%-9%). CONCLUSION: If decision-makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high certainty require comprehensive searches.
Authors: Julian Flükiger; Alexa Hollinger; Benjamin Speich; Vera Meier; Janna Tontsch; Tatjana Zehnder; Martin Siegemund Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez; Andrea C Tricco; Karen R Steingart; Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit; David Kaunelis; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Susan Baxter; Patrick M Bossuyt; Javier Zamora Journal: Diagn Progn Res Date: 2019-04-04
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