MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 62, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1261-1267

  Slobogean, Gerard P ^a   Verma, Ashim ^a   Giustini, Dean ^a   Slobogean, Bronwyn L ^a   Mulpuri, Kishore ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bibliographic databases; Information retrieval; Literature searching; Meta analysis; Orthopedic surgery; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CINAHL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EMBASE; GOLD STANDARD; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RECALL;

BIBLIOMETRICS; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; MEDLINE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; ORTHOPEDIC PROCEDURES; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 70350564269     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.013     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Felson D.T. Bias in meta-analytic research. J Clin Epidemiol 45 (1992) 885-892
2. Egger M., and Smith G.D. Meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies. Br Med J 316 (1998) 61-66
3. Sutton A.J., Jones D.R., Abrams K.R., Sheldon T.A., and Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research (2000), John Wiley, London
4. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [updated February 2008]. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/index.htm Accessed September 1, 2008.
5. Shohania K.G., Sampson M., Ansari M.T., Ji J., Doucette S., and Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 147 (2007) 224-233
6. McKibbon K.A., and Fridsma D.B. Effectiveness of clinician-selected electronic information resources for answering primary care physicians' information needs. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13 (2006) 653-659 Epub August 2006
7. Haynes R.B., McKibbon K.A., Wilczynski N.L., Walter S.D., Werre S.R., and Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from MEDLINE: analytical survey. BMJ 330 (2005) 1179
8. McKibbon K.A., Wilczynski N.L., and Haynes R.B. What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals?. BMC Med 2 (2004) 33
9. McKibbon K.A., and Gadd C.S. A quantitative analysis of qualitative studies in clinical journals for the 2000 publishing year. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 4 (2004) 11
10. Cook D.J., Sackett D.L., and Spitzer W.O. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48 (1995) 167-171
11. Moher D., Cook D.J., Eastwood S., Olkin I., Rennie D., Stroup D.F., and QUOROM Group. . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 354 (1999) 1896-1900
12. Olkin I. Statistical and theoretical considerations in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48 (1995) 133-146
13. McAuley L., Pham B., Tugwell P., and Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 56 (2000) 1228-1231
14. Hopewell S., Clarke M., Lusher A., Lefebvre C., and Westby M. A comparison of handsearching versus MEDLINE searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials. Stat Med 21 (2002) 1625-1634
15. Whiting P., Westwood M., Burke M., Sterne J., and Glanville J. Systematic reviews of test accuracy should search a range of databases to identify primary studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61 (2008) 357-364
16. Wilczynski N.L., Garg A.X., Haynes B., and Nephrology Hedges Team. A method for defining a journal subset for a clinical discipline using the bibliographies of systematic reviews. Stud Health Technol Inform 129 (2007) 721-724
17. Sampson M., McGowan J., Lefebvre C., Moher D., and Grimshaw J. PRESS: peer review of electronic search strategies (2008), Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa
18. Sampson M., Barrowman N.J., Moher D., Klassen T.P., Pham B., Platt R., et al. Should meta-analysts search EMBASE in addition to MEDLINE?. J Clin Epidemiol 56 (2003) 943-955
19. Suarez-Almazor M.E., Belseck E., Homik J., Dorgan M., and Ramos-Rems C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials 21 (2000) 476-487
20. Langham J., Thompson E., and Rowan K. Identification of randomized controlled trials from the emergency medicine literature: comparison of hand searching versus MEDLINE searching. Ann Emerg Med 34 (1999) 25-34
21. Wilczynski N.L., Morgan D., Haynes R.B., and Hedges Team. An overview of the design and methods for retrieving high-quality studies for clinical care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 5 (2005) 20
22. Adams C.E., Power A., Frederick K., and Lefebvre C. An investigation of the adequacy of MEDLINE searches for RCTs of the effects of mental health care. Psychol Med 24 (1994) 741-748
23. Rovers J.P., Janosik J.E., and Souney P.F. Crossover comparison of drug information online database vendors: Dialog and MEDLARS. Ann Pharmacother 27 (1993) 634-639
24. Ramos-Remus C., Suarez-Almazor M., Dorgan M., Gomez-Vargas A., and Russell A.S. Performance of online biomedical databases in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 21 (1994) 1912-1921
25. Dickersin K., Scherer R., and Lefebvre C. Systematic reviews: identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. Br Med J 309 (1994) 1286-1291
26. Kleijnen J., and Knipschild P. The comprehensiveness of MEDLINE and EMBASE computer searches. Searches for controlled trials of homeopathy, ascorbic acid for common cold, and ginko biloba for cerebral insufficiency and intermittent claudication. Pharm Weekbl Sci 14 (1992) 316-320
27. McDonald S., Taylor L., and Adams C. Searching the right database. A comparison of four databases for psychiatry journals. Health Lib Rev 16 (1999) 151-156
28. Giustini D., and Barsky E. A look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: comparisons and recommendations. J Can Health Lib Assoc 26 (2005) 85-89