Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews

Health Information and Libraries Journal

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 92-105

  Golder, Su ^a   Loke, Yoon K ^b   Zorzela, Liliane ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bibliographic databases; Database searching; Information retrieval; MEDLINE; Meta analysis; Review, literature; Review, systematic; Search strategies; Searching

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84903478848     PISSN: 14711834     EISSN: 14711842     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hir.12041     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Golder, S. & Loke, Y. K. Search strategies to identify information on adverse effects: a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2009, 97, 84-92.
2. Golder, S. & Loke, Y. K. Sources of information on adverse effects: a systematic review. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2010, 27, 176-190.
3. Higgins, J. P. T. & Green, S. (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. Accessible at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
4. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health care 3rd ed. York: University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2009.
5. Loke, Y., Golder, S. & Vandenbrouche, J. Comprehensive evaluations of the adverse effects of drugs: importance of appropriate study selection and data sources. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety 2011, 2, 59-68.
6. Wieland, S. & Dickersin, K. Selective exposure reporting and Medline indexing limited the search sensitivity for observational studies of the adverse effects of oral contraceptives. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005, 58, 560-567.
7. Badgett, R., Chiquette, E., Anagnostelis, B. & Mulrow, C. Locating reports of serious adverse drug reactions (PowerPoint presentation). 1999. [cited 2005 Jan 7]. Accessible at: http://medinformatics.uthscsa.edu/#FILTERS.
8. Golder, S., McIntosh, H. M., Duffy, S. & Glanville, J. Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2006, 23, 3-12.
9. Golder, S., Loke, Y. & McIntosh, H. M. Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2006, 6, 3.
10. Cornelius, V., Perrio, M., Smith, L. & Shakir, S. A survey of the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews assessing adverse effects of drug interventions. Drug Safety 2008, 31, 891.
11. Golder, S., Loke, Y. & McIntosh, H. M. Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008, 61, 440-448.
12. Hopewell, S., Wolfenden, L. & Clarke, M. Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008, 61, 597-602.
13. Cornelius, V. R., Perrio, M. J., Shakir, S. A. W. & Smith, L. A. Systematic reviews of adverse effects of drug interventions: a survey of their conduct and reporting quality. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2009, 18, 1223-1231.
14. Booth, A. "Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006, 94, 421-429.
15. Brazier, H. Systematic Reviews depend on Systematic Literature Searches. The Sixth European Conference of Medical and Health Libraries. Libraries without limits: changing needs - changing roles; EAHIL/AEBIS; 22-27 June 1998; Utrecht, The Netherlands. Accessible at: http://www.eahil.net/utrecht.htm
16. Brazier, H. Poorly executed and inadequately documented? An analysis of the literature searches on which systematic reviews are based. In: Presented at the 2nd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics; 5-7 January 1999; Oxford, UK; 1999.
17. Flores-Mir, C., Major, M. P. & Major, M. P. Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics [2000-2004]. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2006, 130, 214-217.
18. Glenny, A., Esposito, M., Coulthard, P. & Worthington, H. The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry. European Journal of Oral Sciences 2003, 111, 85-92.
19. Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Browman, G. P., Booker, L., Sigouin, C., Fuentes, M. & Stevens, R. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. British Medical Journal 2000, 320, 537-540.
20. Kelly, K., Travers, A., Dorgan, M., Slater, L. & Rowe, B. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2001, 38, 518-526.
21. Maggio, L. A., Tannery, N. H. & Kanter, S. L. Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews. Academic Medicine 2011, 86, 1049-1054.
22. Major, M. P., Major, P. W. & Flores-Mir, C. Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality. Evidence-Based Dentistry 2007, 8, 66-70.
23. Moher, D., Soeken, K., Sampson, M., Ben-Porat, L. & Berman, B. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatrics, 2002, 2, 1021-1030.
24. Moseley, A. M., Elkins, M. R., Herbert, R. D., Maher, C. G. & Sherrington, C. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009, 62, 1-10.
25. Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Tetzlaff, J., Cogo, E. & Moher, D. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008, 61, 748-754.
26. Yoshii, A., Plaut, D., McGraw, K. A., Anderson, M. J. & Wellik, K. E. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2009, 97, 21-29.
27. Alves, C., Batel-Marques, F. & Filipa Macedo, A. Data sources on drug safety evaluation: a review of recent published meta-analyses. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2012, 21, 21-33.
28. Egger, M., Schneider, M. & Davey Smith, G. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies British Medical Journal, 1998, 316, 140-144.
29. Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A. C., Sampson, M. & Altman, D. G. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 2007, 4, e78.
30. Lundh, A., Knijnenburg, S. L., Jorgensen, A. W., Dalen, E. C. & Kremer, L. C. Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology - a systematic review. Cancer Treatment Reviews 2009, 35, 645-652.
31. Roundtree, A., Kallen, M., Lopezolivo, M., Kimmel, B., Skidmore, B., Ortiz, Z., & Cox, V. Suarez-Almazor, M. E. Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009, 62, 128-137.
32. Bader, J. & Ismail, A. Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry. Journal of the American Dental Association, 2004, 135, 464-473.
33. Sampson, M. & McGowan, J. Reporting the role of the expert searcher in Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Colloquium; 22-26 October; Melbourne, Australia 2005.
34. Sampson, M., Tetzlaff, J. & Urquhart, C. Precision of health care systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample. Research Synthesis Methods 2011, 2, 119-125.
35. Pilkington, K. & Boshnakova, A. Complementary medicine and safety: a systematic investigation of design and reporting of systematic reviews. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2012, 20, 73-82.
36. Ernst, E. & Pittler, M. H. Systematic reviews neglect safety issues. Archives of Internal Medicine 2001, 161, 125-126.
37. Ernst, E. & Pittler, M. H. Assessment of therapeutic safety in systematic reviews: literature review. British Medical Journal 2001, 323, 546.
38. Vandermeer, B., Bialy, L., Johnston, B., Hooton, N., Hartling, L., Klassen, T., Johnston, B. C. & Wiebe, N. Meta-analyses of safety data: a comparison of exact versus asymptotic methods. 14th Cochrane Colloquium; 23-26 October 2006; Dublin, Ireland.
39. Dixon, E., Hameed, M., Sutherland, F., Cook, D. J. & Doig, C. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature. A critical appraisal. Annals of Surgery 2005, 241, 450-459.
40. Linde, K. & Willich, S. N. How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2003, 96, 17-22.
41. Jadad, A. R. & McQuay, H. J. Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1996, 49, 235-243.
42. Delaney, A., Bagshaw, S. M., Ferland, A., Manns, B., Laupland, K. B. & Doig, C. J. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Critical Care 2005, 9, R575-R582.
43. Rigby, K., Silagy, C. & Crockett, A. Health economic reviews. Are they compiled systematically? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1996, 12, 450-459.
44. Sacks, H., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., Ancona-Berk, V. A. & Chalmers, T. C. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. The New England Journal of Medicine 1987, 316, 450-455.
45. Shang, H., Zhang, J., Zhang, B. & Youping, L. Methodology and quality of reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional chinese medicine. 15th Cochrane Colloquium; 23-27 October 2007; Sao Paulo, Brazil.
46. Breslow, R. A., Ross, S. A. & Weed, D. L. Quality of reviews in epidemiology. American Journal of Public Health 1998, 88, 475-477.
47. Shea, B., Moher, D., Graham, I., Pham, B. A. & Tugwell, P. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Evaluation and the Health Professions 2002, 25, 116-129.
48. Choi, C., Halpern, S. D., Malik, N., Jadad, A. R., Tramer, M. R. & Walder, B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2001, 92, 700-709.
49. Smith, A. F. An analysis of review articles published in four anaesthesia journals. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 1997, 44, 405-409.
50. Sampson, M. & McGowan, J. Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006, 59, 1057-1063.
51. Shea, B., Boutrer, L. M., Grimshaw, J. M., Francis, D., Ortiz, Z., Wells, G. A., Tugwell, P. S. & Boers, M. Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the cochrance musculoskeletal group. Journal of Rheumatology 2006, 33, 9-15.
52. Fehrmann, P. & Thomas, J. Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods 2011, 2, 15-32.
53. Parekh-Bhurke, S., Kwok, C. S., Pang, C., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J. J., Sutton, A. J., Hing, C. B., Harvey, I. & Song, F. Uptake of methods to deal with publication bias in systematic reviews has increased over time, but there is still much scope for improvement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011, 64, 349-357.
54. Golder, S. & Loke, Y. K. The contribution of different information sources for adverse effects data. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2012, 28, 133-137.
55. Derry, S., Loke, Y. K. & Aronson, J. K. Incomplete evidence: the inadequacy of databases in tracing published adverse drug reactions in clinical trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2001, 1, 7.
56. Golder, S., Loke, Y. K. & Zorzela, L. Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013, 66, 253-260.
57. Golder, S. & Loke, Y. K. The performance of adverse effects search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2012, 29, 141-151.
58. Jadad, A. R., Cook, D. J., Jones, A., Klassen, T. P., Tugwell, P. & Moher, M. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. The Journal of the American Medical Association 1998, 280, 278-280.
59. Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 1997, 315, 629-634.
60. Wen, J., Ren, Y., Wang, L., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Zhou, M., Liu, P., Ye, L., Li, Y. & Tian, W. The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008, 61, 770-775.
61. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). About DARE. 2008. [cited 2008 23 October]. Accessible at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/html/help.htm.
62. Petticrew, M., Song, F., Wilson, P. & Wright, K. Quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions and the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (DARE). International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1999, 15, 671-678.