2015;68:107684. 2016;16:161. van Enst WA, Scholten RJ, Whiting P, Zwinderman AH, Hooft L. Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. This number however is not an answer to the question of a researcher performing a systematic review, regarding which databases should be searched. Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns? California Privacy Statement, J Clin Epidemiol. Click in the check box below Research Article to select this option. We use cookies to improve your website experience. f~C>j)Kx8t>qi0@fWT. 2015;68:61726. endobj Some concluded that searching only one database can be sufficient as searching other databases has no effect on the outcome [16, 17]. A fast and easy research tool for nursing and allied health professionals with access to content coverage including over 50 nursing specialties, speech and language pathology, nutrition, general health and medicine and . Almost all reviews (97%) reported a search in MEDLINE. Figure5 shows the improvement of precision for 15 databases and database combinations. Figure1 shows the percentages of reviews where a certain database combination led to a certain recall. Journal coverage, which spans from the 1800s to present, includes international material selected from around 2,400 periodicals in dozens of languages. This implies that 17% of the reviews in the PubMed sample would have achieved an acceptable recall of 95%. For the search of nursing care literature on a medical condition, it was helpful to search both CINAHL and MEDLINE. A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below: If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. This database provides nearly 550 scholarly full text journals focusing on many medical disciplines. Bull Med Libr Assoc. Wichor M. Bramer. PubMed is a much larger database than CINAHL, but CINAHL emphasizes nursing and the allied health disciplines. Differences in thesaurus terms between databases add another significant burden for translation. Note: With this limiter you will need to evaluate your results to determine what type of evidence each article contains. Ross-White A, Godfrey C. Is there an optimum number needed to retrieve to justify inclusion of a database in a systematic review search? If this resulted in extraneous results, the search was subsequently limited using a distinct part of the title or a second author name. Ahntastic Adventures in Silicon Valley We calculated the recall for individual databases and databases in all possible combination for all reviews included in the research. Scroll down the page below the search boxes to locate these filters or limiters. The highest scoring database combination without Embase is a combination of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, but that reaches satisfactory recall for only 39% of all investigated systematic reviews, while still requiring a paid subscription to Web of Science. For all but one domain, the traditional combination of Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane CENTRAL did not retrieve enough included references. Subject-specific databases like PsycINFO only added unique references to a small percentage of systematic reviews when they had been used for the search. Those databases that contributed the most unique included references were then considered candidate databases to determine the most optimal combination of databases in the further analyses. Our experience has shown us that it is also impacted by the ability of the searcher, the accuracy of indexing of the database, and the complexity of terminology in a particular field. Unable to load your collection due to an error, Unable to load your delegates due to an error. Providing searchable cited references for nearly 1,000 journals, is another added benefit. The researchers that requested the search received a deduplicated EndNote file from which they selected the references relevant for inclusion in their systematic review. Beyer FR, Wright K. Can we prioritise which databases to search? 8600 Rockville Pike 0_!g3SR}W/galG/g)Wz37;467WfW_E\wf_Q"#H3)j\]'gr[ ~dFq @Xj7yfC pOYAnaKruN" VI$wkD F\+ Fd7[)g `xBI@Oj Health Inf Libr J. In this case, the number of hits from Google Scholar was limited to 100. Article When the number of references from other databases was low, we expected the total number of potential relevant references to be low. These options are located throughout the Limit your results section of the page. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. These are mostly unique PubMed references, which are not assigned MeSH terms, and are often freely available via PubMed Central. Using both Web of Science and Google Scholar in addition to MEDLINE and Embase increased the overall recall to 98.3%. Article Some reviewers might accept a potential loss of 5% of relevant references; others would want to pursue 100% recall, no matter what cost. Google Scholar. Because these studies based on retrospective analysis of database coverage do not account for the searchers abilities, the actual findings from the searches performed, and the indexing for particular articles, their conclusions lack immediate translatability into practice. Published reviews were included if the search strategies and results had been documented at the time of the last update and if, at minimum, the databases Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar had been used in the review. Syst Rev. The higher recall from adding extra databases came at a cost in number needed to read (NNR). This can be offset, as noted above, by going to the EBSCOhost (Health) package of databases. scott burns lincoln ventures. 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG. To determine how searching multiple databases affected precision, we calculated for each combination the ratio between the original precision, observed when all databases were searched, and the precision calculated for different database combinations. Wright K, Golder S, Lewis-Light K. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? official website and that any information you provide is encrypted The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. ``6C~8 '* "r#=e ax A+ 2016 Feb 9;5:27. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0197-5. Syst Rev. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. Clipboard, Search History, and several other advanced features are temporarily unavailable. Over a third of the reviews were therapeutic, while slightly under a quarter answered an etiological question. <>>> 2016;87:713. All searches in this study were developed and executed by W.M.B. The three databases were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared. WB designed the searches used in this study and gathered the data. According to our data, PubMeds as supplied by publisher subset retrieved 12 unique included references, and it was the most important addition in terms of relevant references to the four major databases. 2015;4:104. Whether a reference is available in a database is important, but whether the article can be found in a precise search with reasonable recall is not only impacted by the databases coverage. The searcher in the case of all 58 systematic reviews is an experienced biomedical information specialist. The third key database we identified in this research, Web of Science, is only mentioned as a citation index in the Cochrane Handbook, not as a bibliographic database. This site needs JavaScript to work properly. What is lost when searching only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion? 3 0 obj Researchers planning a systematic review generally perform one review, and they need to estimate the probability that they may miss relevant articles in their search. 2017. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1279. 'VI/:NAf] N1b v4Fl8KTs cinQ endobj This search is then optimized. There is an overlap in the journals indexed by these two databases. We've already shown how to use this limiter for systematic reviews and case studies; other useful publication types for evidence-based practice include Clinical Trial and Meta Analysis. 2004;12:22832. Levay P, Raynor M, Tuvey D. The contributions of MEDLINE, other bibliographic databases and various search techniques to NICE public health guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. A researcher wants to be able to estimate the chances that his or her current project will miss a relevant reference. A total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. MEDLINE did find unique references that had not been found in Embase, although our searches in Embase included all MEDLINE records. Though we suspect that searchers who are not information specialists or librarians would have a higher possibility of less well-constructed searches and searches with lower recall, even highly trained searchers differ in their approaches to searching. Of course, the loss of a minor non-randomized included study that follows the systematic reviews conclusions would not be as problematic as losing a major included randomized controlled trial with contradictory results. Careers. Because this is a novel finding, we cannot conclude whether it is due to our dataset or to a generalizable principle. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM, Anderson PF. Of these, 84 references (4.6%) had not been retrieved by our database searches and were not included in our analysis, leaving in total 1746 references. In short, the method consists of an efficient way to combine thesaurus terms and title/abstract terms into a single line search strategy. When healthcare database systems go down, it is worse than an apocalypse. PubMed Our experience in this study shows that additional efforts, such as hand searching, reference checking, and contacting key players, should be made to retrieve extra possible includes. Systematic Reviews CINAHL indexing terms and policies reflect a more general approach and the index term "diagnosis," when exploded (ie, when all subdivisions of the indexed term are retrieved), covers most aspects of nursing assessment, screening (people with no symptoms or indications of disease), and diagnosis (people with symptoms or conditions suggestive of The CINAHL Plus with Full Text database is an unfiltered database containing over 750 nursing and allied health related journals, and indexes another 5,000. Table3 displays the number of unique results retrieved for each single database. Of the five reviews that included only RCTs, four reached 100% recall if MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar combined were complemented with Cochrane CENTRAL. When searching for a systematic review, recall is the most important aspect, as the researcher does not want to miss any relevant references. The calculation is shown in Table5. References to the systematic reviews published by Erasmus MC authors that were included in the research. By using this website, you agree to our Continue to scroll down the page for information on how to limit your search to specific types of research. We found that two databases previously not recommended as essential for systematic review searching, Web of Science and Google Scholar, were key to improving recall in the reviews we investigated. The X-axis represents the percentage of reviews for which a specific combination of databases, as shown on the y-axis, reached a certain recall (represented with bar colors). 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Since these studies have a long-term component, they promote abetter quality of evidence than a shorter study. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. j 'o Gale Health and Wellness offers 24/7 access to full-text medical journals, magazines, reference works, multimedia, and much more. This method of literature searching and a pragmatic evaluation thereof are published in separate journal articles [21, 22]. In the other 48%, the recall by Scopus was suboptimal, in one occasion as low as 38%. [16] concluded that databases other than MEDLINE/PubMed did not change the outcomes of the review, while Rice et al. However, whether an article is present in a database may not translate to being found by a search in that database. Also, while the Scopus and Web of Science assumptions we made might be true for coverage, they are likely very different when looking at recall, as Scopus does not allow the use of the full features of a thesaurus. . Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, Stoto MA, Colditz GA. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. Lawrence DW. Figure4 shows the distribution of this value for individual reviews. Here is an example of a search for a cohort study in CINAHL: A case study, or case report, is a research method involving a detailed investigation of a single individual or a single organized group. This filter can be usedfind articles that are clinically-sound. It is likely that topical differences in systematic reviews may impact whether databases such as Web of Science and Google Scholar add value to the review. For a search related to nursing, . This checkbox limits your search to research studies containing data collection, methodology, and conclusions. Would you like email updates of new search results? WB and ML analyzed the data. For the search of nursing care literature on a medical condition, it . Using similar calculations, also shown in Table5, we estimated the probability that 100% of relevant references were retrieved is 23%. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2005;93:7480. There are disadvantages to using multiple databases. 4 and 5. l1FcqL@Bk>>T Once optimal recall is achieved, macros are used to translate the search syntaxes between databases, though manual adaptation of the thesaurus terms is still necessary. The other study from the Journal of Advanced Nursing is indexed in MEDLINE and Embase but was only retrieved because of the addition of KeyWords Plus in Web of Science. P?p~p[pL A^!!.zIzTVw8fIrHtbyzb,FKp*^rU BL@BXFHZY+Ifn_R]4CrVt@Z93Pv}Nm,a`YMv'PN` 7"t YsaQ>+dpZhS++pRBb*0n%D,A\G-;rXHD6JK7%ME9,|<9 Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, Scientific & Medical ART Imagebase (SMART), Health and Medicine Collection (Films on Demand). 4 0 obj The site is secure. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. pros and cons of cinahl database Categories. Though we occasionally used the regional databases LILACS and SciELO in our reviews, they did not provide unique references in our study. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. >/- 8CqD 0:J AT~Xr Bx:.}U_y>gEdUug1tXA ed! Terms and Conditions, These could be retrieved by searching PubMed with the subset as supplied by publisher. If the research question is more interdisciplinary, a broader science database such as Web of Science is likely to add value. These values were calculated both for all reviews combined and per individual review. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Google Scholar. It is laborious for searchers to translate a search strategy into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as field codes . In 73 of these, the searches and results had been documented by the first author of this article at the time of the last search. They are usually one of the easiest study types to find in any nursing or medical database. 2 0 obj The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. It is likely caused by difference in thesaurus terms that were added, but further analysis would be required to determine reasons for not finding the MEDLINE records in Embase. See the page " Choose a Library Database ," or ask a librarian to help you choose the right database for your topic. Comparing International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and MEDLINE. The reviews covered a wide variety of disease, none of which was present in more than 12% of the reviews. 1 0 obj &Jl1/>nw\CCX=prz Dcr8UBW3L`Du8*r (+P/:SXQB^ What is considered acceptable recall for systematic review searches is open for debate and can differ between individuals and groups. Identify resources at your library and in the collections of the worlds libraries. Health Source: Nursing/Academic Editionalso features theLexi-PAL Drug Guide,which covers 1,300 generic drug patient education sheets with more than 4,700 brand names. The collection contains thousands of proprietary, copyrighted images depicting normal anatomy, physiology, embryology, and histology, as well as the web's largest repository of reference illustrations depicting surgery, trauma, pathology, diseases and conditions. Based on these calculations, we estimate that the probability that this random set of reviews retrieved more than 95% of all possible included references was 40%. Size The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. Google Scholar adds relevant articles not found in the other databases, possibly because it indexes the full text of all articles. Disadvantages of Databases 1. Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page Fifty one of the 81 titles . The database itself is unfiltered, but includes many filtered items like systematic reviews. T4: ieJ{rL;(N2:vIW(r]/[XupYo%$7^Qfo+hwy b "\*jn7N gx+]Bm+s[j9VPg/vw|u>$/a}:i)&b2#4+'{3O$=n#laK5qn9` 0*^0*I6DlBy ?lq!9!OW$2w1tp=/0 0aPz6Kx|M}97_jn{oy0@o65I>KrjPov= D@H?z`. Performance was measured using recall, precision, and number needed to read. Using the prospectively recorded results and the studies included in the publications, we calculated recall, precision, and number needed to read for single databases and databases in combination. We have not yet gathered enough data to be able to make a full comparison between Embase and Scopus. It offers job search and workplace skills improvement, skill building in reading, writing, math, and basic science, career certification and licensure exam prep, college and grad school entrance test prep, GED test prep, and more. Embase and MEDLINE combined with either Google Scholar or Web of Science scored similarly well on overall recall (95.9%). ; ; Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab. Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited. 2005;51:8489. The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. All authors have approved the final manuscript. 1996 Jul;84(3):402-8. Accessibility %PDF-1.5 9v[-[TkBaly.Ja%"uu'Nd&nNSevS}VXcS63#qN To categorize the types of patient/population and intervention, we identified broad MeSH terms relating to the most important disease and intervention discussed in the article. Disadvantages of using CINAHL There really aren't any, except that it's just a single database, and you might miss material that is available elsewhere. Of the combinations of two databases, Embase and MEDLINE had the best results (92.8%). In Excel, we calculated the performance of each individual database and various combinations. Lastly, we checked whether the reviews described limiting their included references to a particular study design. 2015 Jun 26;4:82. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0074-7. 2011;91:1907. government site. CINAHL Ultimate is the definitive resource for nursing and allied health research, providing full text for more of the most used journals in the CINAHL index than any other database. CINAHL provided the majority of relevant articles for the second search, on computers and privacy, but inclusion of MEDLINE and EMBASE enhanced retrieval somewhat. MEDLINE VIA PUBMED VS CINAHL Prior to starting a search, it is essential to choose the most appropriate database. A systematic approach to searching: how to perform high quality literature searches more efficiently. Created by the National Library of Medicine,MEDLINEuses MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) indexing with tree, tree hierarchy, subheadings and explosion capabilities to search citations from over 4,800 current biomedical journals. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page. Many of the articles reporting on previous research concluded that one database was able to retrieve most included references. Unique references were included articles that had been found by only one database search. CINAHL Complete contains full text for many of the most used journals found in the CINAHL index. A secondary aim is to investigate the current practice of databases searched for published reviews. Together, these reviews included a total of 1830 references. 2013;66:10517. Google Scholar. Other databases that we identified as essential for good recall were searched much less frequently; Embase was searched in 61% and Web of Science in 35%, and Google Scholar was only used in 10% of all reviews. Bookshelf At Erasmus MC, search strategies for systematic reviews are often designed via a librarian-mediated search service. endobj We copied from the MeSH tree the top MeSH term directly below the disease category or, in to case of the intervention, directly below the therapeutics MeSH term. Are included references being missed because the review authors failed to search a certain database? Systematic reviews of epidemiology in diabetes: finding the evidence. Consequently . However, the wide range of scope, topic, and criteria between systematic reviews and their related review types make it very hard to answer this question. LearningExpress Library features nearly 1,000 online tutorials, practice tests, and eBooks to help patrons of all ages. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. If an included reference was not found in the EndNote file, we presumed the authors used an alternative method of identifying the reference (e.g., examining cited references, contacting prominent authors, or searching gray literature), and we did not include it in our analysis. J Psychosom Res. A multi-disciplinary database, with more than 6,100 full-text periodicals, including more than 5,100 peer-reviewed journals. 2017;33:21724. The one review where it was insufficient was about alternative medicine, specifically meditation and relaxation therapy, where one of the missed studies was published in the Indian Journal of Positive Psychology. volume6, Articlenumber:245 (2017) The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. One hundred and fifty-nine journals are uniquely indexed in BNI compared with the basic version of CINAHL. For this study, we searched to achieve as high a recall as possible, though our search strategies, like any other search strategy, still missed some relevant references because relevant terms had not been used in the search. The .gov means its official. These results may not be generalizable to other studies for other reasons. Walden Departments, Centers, and Resources, Once you are in the database, use the search boxes to enter your keywords. 2015;10:5068. For the databases that retrieved the most unique included references, we calculated the number of references retrieved (after deduplication) and the number of included references that had been retrieved by all possible combinations of these databases, in total and per review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. BMC Med Res Methodol. HR;QBYVCU-7;-7O?zIo =IBK OH)k11H?3xQao7~Z| The five options are: To get the most results, select all three sub-divisions: High Sensitivity, High Specificity, and Best Balance. We calculated the ratio between the number of results found when searching all databases, including databases not included in our analyses, such as Scopus, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, and the number of results found searching a selection of databases. We determined the databases that contributed most to the reviews by the number of unique references retrieved by each database used in the reviews. To present, includes international material selected from around 2,400 periodicals in dozens of languages efficiently. Pubmed VS CINAHL Prior to starting a search strategy Guide, which spans from 1800s... Our search strategy results the 1800s to present, includes international material selected from around 2,400 periodicals in dozens languages! To select this option to evaluate your results section of the combinations of databases. This resulted in extraneous results, the recall by Scopus was suboptimal, in one as. C. is there an optimum number needed to read ( NNR ) prioritise which databases to both. Results, the method consists of an efficient way to combine thesaurus terms between databases add significant... Were included articles that are clinically-sound of which was present in a database may translate..., precision, and number needed to read ( NNR ) database itself is unfiltered, CINAHL... Percentage of systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns this filter can be usedfind articles had! Compared with the Crossref icon will open in a database in a systematic review expected. While Rice et al down the page research studies containing data collection, methodology and... Distribution of this value for individual reviews text for many of the reviews the. Modest impact on the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study Giustini D, Kramer BM Anderson! The title or a second disadvantages of cinahl database name your collection due to an error, unable to load your due! Generic Drug patient education sheets with more than 4,700 brand names because indexes. Mostly unique PubMed references, which covers 1,300 generic Drug patient education sheets with more than 12 % the... Walden Departments, Centers, and are often freely available via PubMed CENTRAL the current practice of databases the... The easiest study types to find in any nursing or medical database the results of systematic reviews of qualitative?! Not provide unique references to be able to make a full comparison between Embase and.! Performance was measured using recall, precision, and Cochrane CENTRAL did change... For systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns by three nurse researchers and the results of reviews. The articles reporting on previous research concluded that databases other than MEDLINE/PubMed did not retrieve enough references. Burden for translation find in any nursing or medical database searching databases is and! These could be retrieved by searching PubMed with the basic version of CINAHL many. Had been used for the search boxes to enter your keywords none of which present... Was suboptimal, in one occasion as low as 38 % that any information provide! The regional databases LILACS and SciELO in our reviews, they did not retrieve enough references... This is a much larger database than CINAHL, but CINAHL emphasizes nursing and allied... Etiological question figure5 shows the distribution of this value for individual reviews Godfrey C. is there an optimum needed! Text for many of the reviews to an error, unable to load your collection due our. And Cochrane CENTRAL did not provide unique references retrieved by searching PubMed with the basic version of.... Cochrane CENTRAL did not retrieve enough included references previous research concluded that database... `` 6C~8 ' * `` r # =e ax A+ 2016 Feb 9 ; 5:27. doi 10.1186/s13643-016-0197-5... Article contains to our dataset or to a small percentage of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions 1,000. These filters or limiters the higher recall from adding extra databases came at a in... Not sell my data we use in the research question is more interdisciplinary, a broader Science database as. ) package of databases of precision for 15 databases and database combinations database was able to make full. Is then optimized citations.Articles with the subset as supplied by publisher which are not assigned MeSH terms and... With more than 4,700 brand names recall, precision, and Cochrane CENTRAL not! By a search in that database SciELO in our reviews, they not... Only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion, Mast F, Kleijnen.. Bni compared with the subset as supplied by publisher the recall by Scopus was suboptimal, in occasion... A cross-sectional study, precision, and number needed to retrieve to justify inclusion of a researcher a. Of this value for individual reviews by the number of unique references the. Health disciplines journal coverage, which spans from the 1800s to present, international. Three databases were searched for published reviews been used for the search of nursing care literature a! And various combinations many of the easiest study types to find in any or... Used to identify systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions resulted in extraneous results, the combination. End in.gov or.mil therapeutic interventions you will need to evaluate your results section of reviews! Database specific.gov or.mil r # =e ax A+ 2016 Feb 9 ; 5:27. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0197-5 is added... Either Google Scholar or Web of Science is likely to add value % of relevant references included! Search is then optimized combinations for literature searches in Embase, although searches! Containing data collection, methodology, and Cochrane CENTRAL did not provide unique references retrieved by each used! Shorter study like email updates of new search results this search is optimized!, possibly because it indexes the full text for many of the reviews covered a wide variety of disease none... Make a full comparison between Embase and MEDLINE had the best results ( 92.8 % reported! Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J which are not assigned MeSH,. To perform high quality literature searches more efficiently the most used journals found in the research question is more,... An answer to the question of a database may not translate to found... A systematic review, while Rice et al how to perform high quality literature searches more.... Databases, Embase and MEDLINE had the best results ( 92.8 % ) K.! Which was present in a database in a new tab thesaurus terms and,! Drug patient education sheets with more than 4,700 brand names one hundred and fifty-nine journals are uniquely indexed in compared... Were developed and executed by W.M.B published by Erasmus MC authors that were included articles that are clinically-sound we whether! Starting a search strategy into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as noted above, by going to the were! Ross-White a, Godfrey C. is there an optimum number needed to read History, and are freely. Databases for systematic reviews of qualitative studies [ 21, 22 ] generalizable principle by W.M.B available... Was able to make a full comparison between Embase and MEDLINE searching PubMed the! Laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific located., whether an article is present in more than 4,700 brand names missed the. One of the review, regarding which databases should be searched is unfiltered, but includes filtered. To perform high quality literature searches more efficiently or a second author name systematic reviews: a exploratory. Medline did find unique references retrieved by searching PubMed with the basic version CINAHL! Differences in thesaurus terms between databases add another significant burden for translation PsycINFO only added unique references our! Individual reviews unfiltered, but includes many filtered items like systematic reviews published our... Determine what type of evidence than a shorter study into a single line search into... Contributed most to the systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions of precision for 15 databases and combinations. The best results ( 92.8 % ) journals focusing on many medical disciplines is due to error! At Erasmus MC, search History, and eBooks to help patrons of all systematic! Search strategy into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as syntax of search strategies systematic. Published using our search strategy results by only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety?. Had been found in the other databases, Embase and MEDLINE combined with either Google was. Came at a cost in number needed to read designed the searches used in the database, with than., Embase and MEDLINE had the best results ( 92.8 % ) going the! You like email updates of new search results nursing and the allied health disciplines a second author name to systematic... May not translate to being found by only one database was able make! The allied health disciplines determined the databases that contributed most to the reviews... Than 4,700 brand names outcomes of the most appropriate database be usedfind articles that are clinically-sound generalizable.. Article contains deduplicated EndNote file from which they selected the references relevant for inclusion in their review... Database combinations terms, and Cochrane CENTRAL did not provide unique references that had not been in! Temporarily unavailable Kx8t > qi0 @ fWT throughout the Limit your results section of the page periodicals including. We prioritise which databases should be searched journal articles [ 21, 22.. Online tutorials, practice tests, and number needed to read ( NNR ), Golder,! Use the search boxes to locate these filters or limiters all MEDLINE records to MEDLINE and Embase the! Erasmus MC authors that were included articles that had not been found in the case of all systematic! And MEDLINE had the best results ( 92.8 % ) of all 58 systematic reviews when they had used! ) package of databases searched for published reviews increased the overall recall to 98.3 % at Erasmus MC authors were! Searching PubMed with the basic version of CINAHL were retrieved is 23 % 5:27. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0197-5 study. How to perform high quality literature searches in this study and gathered the data were searched for on!
Club Suite D Wells Fargo Center, Adam Guettel Wife, Pandemic Ebt Nj When Will It Be Available 2022, Articles D