Value of databases other than medline for rapid health technology assessments

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 173-178

  Lorenzetti, Diane L ^a   Topfer, Leigh Ann ^b   Dennett, Liz ^b   Clement, Fiona ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bibliographic; Biomedical; Databases; Information storage retrieval; MEDLINE; Research design; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

SOCIAL SCIENCES;

BIBLIOGRAPHIC; BIOMEDICAL; MEDLINE; RESEARCH DESIGNS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS;

DATABASE SYSTEMS;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; DATA BASE; ECONOMIC ASPECT; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MEDLINE; SOCIOLOGY; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; FACTUAL DATABASE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; TIME FACTOR;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; MEDLINE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84902084898     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462314000166     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Facey K. Glossary. International network of agencies for health technology assessment 2006. http://www.inahta.org/Glossary/(accessed August 15, 2013).
2. Hailey D, Corabian P, Harstall C, Schneider W. The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:651-656.
3. Hailey D. A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:415-418.
4. Menon D, Stafinski T. Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 2):S14-S19.
5. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.
6. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, et al. Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.
7. Harker J, Kleijnen J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10:397-410.
8. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133-139.
9. Bahaadinbeigy K, Yogesan K, Wootton R. MEDLINE versus EM-BASE and CINAHL for telemedicine searches. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16:916-919.
10. Betran AP, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. 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. 2005;5:6.
11. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-76.
12. Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, et al. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:867-873.
13. Parkhill AF, Clavisi O, Pattuwage L, et al. Searches for evidence mapping: Effective, shorter, cheaper. J Med Libr Assoc. 2011;99:157-160.
14. 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;19:591-603.
15. Royle P, Waugh N. A simplified search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials for systematic reviews of health care interventions: A comparison with more exhaustive strategies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:23.
16. Royle PL, Bain L, Waugh NR. Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes. Diabet Med. 2005;22:1386-1393.
17. Sampson M, Barrowman NJ, Moher D, et al. Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:943-955.
18. Slobogean GP, Verma A, Giustini D, et al. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1261-1267.
19. Stevinson C, Lawlor DA. Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: Added value or diminishing returns? Complement Ther Med. 2004;12:228-232.
20. Subirana M, Sola I, Garcia JM, et al. A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:20-25.
21. Glanville J, Paisley S. Identifying economic evaluations for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:436-440.
22. Sampson M, Tetzlaff J, Urquhart C. Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:119-125.
23. Topfer LA, Parada A, Menon D, et al. Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:297-303.
24. Leclercq E. Indexing of a clinical paper by EMBASE and MEDLINE. CILIP Health Libr Group Newsletter. 2005;22:10-13.
25. Sampson M, Zhang L, Morrison A, et al. An alternative to the hand searching gold standard: Validating methodological search filters using relative recall. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:33.
26. Hoogendam A, de Vries Robbe PF, Stalenhoef AF, Overbeke AJ. Evaluation of PubMed filters used for evidence-based searching: Validation using relative recall. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009;97:186-193.
27. Key MEDLINE indicators. US National Library of Medicine 2012. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/bsd-key.html (accessed August 16, 2013).
28. Ware M, Mabe M. The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, 3rd ed. The Netherlands: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2012.
29. Cochrane Collaboration. Glossary. Cochrane Collaboration 2014. www.cochrane.org/glossary/(accessed August 13, 2013).