Building upon existing evidence to shape future research endeavors

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

Volumn 65, Issue 18, 2008, Pages 1767-1774

  Smith, Kelly M ^a,b,c  

^a Academic Affairs ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

Literature; Methodology; Research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DISEASE SEVERITY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHARMACY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 52949090442     PISSN: 10792082     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2146/ajhp070176     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, Von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. 2007; 2:MR000005.
2. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L et al. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. 2007; 2:MR000011.
3. Schrimsher RH, Kendrach MG. A primer: basic PubMed searching for pharmacists. Hosp Pharm. 2006; 41:855-67.
4. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J et al. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials. 2000; 21:476-87.
5. Elsevier. EMBASE. www.embase.com (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
6. Thomson Scientific. International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. http://scientific.thomson.com/products/ipa/ (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
7. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. www.cinahl.com/ (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
8. The British Library. Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED). www.bl.uk/collections/health/amed.html (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
9. The Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane.org (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
10. Henderson J. Google Scholar: a source for clinicians? CMAJ. 2005; 172:1549-50.
11. Steinbrook R. Searching for the right search - reaching the medical literature. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354:4-7.
12. Thomson Scientific. Web of Science. http://scientific.thomson.com/ webofknowledge/ (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
13. Thomson Scientific. Biological Abstracts. http://scientific.thomson.com/ products/ba /(accessed 2007 Mar 28).
14. Chemical Abstracts Service. Chemical Abstracts / SciFinder. www.cas.org/products/scifindr/index.html/ (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
15. U.S. Department of Education. Educational Resources Information Center. www.eric.ed.gov (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
16. Thomson Scientific. Current Contents. http://scientific.thomsonreuters. com/products/ccc/ (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
17. Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects. http://crisp.cit.nih.gov (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
18. ClinicalTrials.gov. http://clinicaltrials.gov (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
19. Current Controlled Trials. www.controlled-trials.com/mrct (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
20. National Institutes of Health. AIDSinfo. http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/ (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
21. National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Information. www.cancer.gov/ (accessed 2007 Mar 28).
22. Bagshaw SM, McAlister FA, Manns BJ et al. Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:161-6.
23. Thompson S. Why and how sources of heterogeneity should be investigated. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London, England: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001:157-75.
24. Glasziou PP, Sanders SL. Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviews. Stat Med. 2002; 21:1503-11.
25. Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis. 1979; 32:51-63.
26. Bias and confounding factors. In: Spilker B. Guide to clinical trials. New York: Raven Press; 1991:21-6.