Systematic searches for the effectiveness of respite care

Journal of the Medical Library Association

Volumn 96, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 147-152

  Golder, Su ^a   Mason, Anne ^b   Spilsbury, Karen ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b Centre for Health Economics

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ELDERLY CARE; EMBASE; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL CARE; MEDLINE; NOMENCLATURE; PSYCINFO; PUBLICATION; RESPITE CARE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOCIAL CARE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CAREGIVER; CLASSIFICATION; DOCUMENTATION; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; CAREGIVERS; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; LIBRARY MATERIALS; MEDLINE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RESPITE CARE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SUBJECT HEADINGS;

EID: 41949105697     PISSN: 15365050     EISSN: 15589439     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.96.2.147     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Grayson L, Gomersall A. A difficult business: finding the evidence for social science reviews (working paper 19). London, UK: Economic and Social Research Council, UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, 2003.
2. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
3. Taylor BJ, Dempster M, Donnelly M. Hidden gems: systematically searching electronic databases for research publications for social work and social care. Br J Soc Work 2003 Jun;33(4):423-9.
4. Bayliss S, Dretzke J. Health technology assessment in social care: a case study of randomized controlled trial retrieval. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006 Winter;22(1):39-46.
5. Cantor MH. Social care: family and community support systems. Ann Amer Acad Pol Soc Sci 1989 May;(503):99-112.
6. The Campbell Collaboration. The Campbell Collaboration, what helps? what harms? based on what evidence? [web document]. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, 2007. [cited 15 Jun 2007]. 〈http://www. campbellcollaboration.org〉.
7. Weaver N, Williams JL, Weightman AL, Kitcher HN, Temple JM, Jones P, Palmer S. Taking STOX: developing a cross disciplinary methodology for systematic reviews of research on the built environment and the health of the public. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002 Jan;56(1):48-55.
8. Ogilvie D, Hamilton V, Egan M, Petticrew M. Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. finding the evidence: how far should you go? J Epidemiol Community Health 2005 Sep;59(9):804-8.
9. Gomersall A. Finding the evidence: looking further afield. Evidence & Policy 2005 May;1(2):269-85.
10. Mason A, Weatherly H, Spilsbury K, Golder S, Arksey H, Adamson J, Drummond M, Glendinning C. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of community-based care for frail older people and their carers. Health Technol Assess 2007 Apr;11(15):1-157, iii.
11. National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness (CRD report 4). 2nd ed. York, UK: University of York, National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2001.
12. Arksey H, Jackson K, Croucher K, Weatherly H, Golder S, Hare P, Newbronner E, Baldwin S. Review of respite services and short-term breaks for carers for people with dementia. London, UK: National Health Service Service Delivery and Organisation, 2004.
13. Brettle A, Long A. Comparison of bibliographic databases for information on the rehabilitation of people with severe mental illness. Bull Med Libr Assoc 2001 Oct;89(4):353-62.
14. Matthews E, Edwards A, Barker J, Bloor M, Covey J, Hood K, Pill R, Russell I, Stott N, Wilkinson C. Efficient literature searching in diffuse topics: lessons from a systematic review of research on communicating risk to patients in primary care. Health Libr Rev 1999 Jun;16(2):112-20.
15. Stevinson C, Lawlor D. Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns? Complement Ther Med 2004 Dec;12(4):228-32.
16. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? empirical study. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(1):1-76.
17. Royle P, Milne R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003 Fall; 19(4):591-603.
18. Royle P, Bain L, Waugh N. Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes. Diabet Med 2005 Oct;22(10):1386-96.
19. Crumley ET, Wiebe N, Cramer K, Klassen TP, Hartling L. Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol [serial online]. 2005;5:24.
20. Savoie I, Helmer D, Green CJ, Kazanjian A. Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003 Winter;19(1):168-78.
21. Betran A, Say L, Gulmezoglu A, Allen T, Hampson L. Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality. BMC Med Res Methodol [serial online]. 2005;5:6.
22. Subirana M, Sola I, Garcia JM, Gich I, Urrutia G. A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification. J Clin Epidemiol 2005 Jan; 58(1):20-5.
23. McManus RJ, Wilson S, Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Hyde CJ, Tobias RS, Jowett S, Hobbs FD. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews. BMJ 1998 Dec 5;317(7172):1562-3.
24. Helmer D, Savoie I, Green C, Kazanjian A. Evidence-based practice: extending the search to find material for the systematic review. Bull Med Libr Assoc 2001 Oct;89(4):346-52.
25. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 2005 Nov 5;331(7524):1064-5.