How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for clinical practice guidelines: database selection and search strategy development (part 2/3)

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 705-721

  Thielen, F W ^a   Van Mastrigt, G A P G ^b   Burgers, L T ^a   Bramer, W M ^c   Majoie, H ^b,e   Evers, S ^f   Kleijnen, J ^b  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d EPILEPSY CENTER KEMPENHAEGHE   (Netherlands)

^e MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

clinical practice guidelines; databases; economic evaluation; guidance; information retrieval; Methods; search engine; search strategy; systematic literature review

Indexed keywords

DATA BASE; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EXTRACT; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SCIENTIST; SEARCH ENGINE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FACTUAL DATABASE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; LITERATURE; PROCEDURES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84997206775     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246962     Document Type: Review

References (96)

1. McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB., Optimal search strategies for detecting cost and economic studies in EMBASE. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):67.
2. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, et al. Evidence synthesis, economics and public policy. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):126–135.
3. Sassi F, Archard L, McDaid D. Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations:how systematic can we afford to be? Med Care. 2002;40(5):387–394.
4. Jenkins M. Evaluation of methodological search filters–a review. Health Inf Libraries J. 2004;21(3):148–163.
5. Alton V, Eckerlund I, Norlund A. Health economic evaluations:how to find them. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(04):512–517.
6. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Lib Assoc. 2005;93(1):74.
7. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated march 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from:www.handbook.cochrane.org.• The Cochrane handbook is a state-of-the-art description of preparing an SR for effectiveness studies, containing also specific information on preparing SR-EEs.
8. van Mastrigt GAPG, Hiligsmann M, Arts JJC, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for clinical practice guidelines (part 1 of 3). Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. doi:10.1080/14737167.2016.1246960. [Epub ahead of print]•• Mastrigt et al. describe the overall framework of which all steps that are explained in this article are part of.
9. Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt GAPG, Evers SMAA, et al. Review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy. Submitted.
10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 5 Identifying the evidence:literature searching and evidence submission. In:Developing NICE guidelines:the manual. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014. Available from:https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction-and-overview
11. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II:advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(18):E839–E842.
12. Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, et al. Guidelines International Network:toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):525–531.
13. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 7 Incorporating economic evidence. In:Developing NICE guidelines:the manual. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
14. Lefebyre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6:Searching for studies. In:Higgins J, Green S, Editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
15. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, et al. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):617–626.
16. Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt GAPG, Redekop WK, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions:data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3 of 3). Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. doi:10.1080/14737167.2016.1246961. [Epub ahead of print].•• Wijnen et al. describe the third step of the SR-EE review process in detail. More specifically, how to develop a data extraction sheet, how to select an appropriate risk of bias assessment checklist, and how to check on transferability.
17. HEED:Health Economic Evaluations Database Available from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470510933
18. News. Available from:http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/
19. White VJ, Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, et al. A statistical approach to designing search filters to find systematic reviews:objectivity enhances accuracy. J Inf Sci. 2001;27(6):357–370.
20. 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(9):867–873.
21. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Systematic reviews:identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. Bmj. 1994;309(6964):1286–1291.
22. Brettle AJ, Long AF, Grant MJ, et al. Searching for information on outcomes:do you need to be comprehensive? Quality in Health Care. 1998;7(3):163–167.
23. Morton S, Levit L, Berg A, et al. Finding what works in health care:standards for systematic reviews. Washington (DC):National Academies Press; 2011.
24. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BMR. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar:a prospective study. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):1–7.
25. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-EF. Available from:www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov
26. Shea B, Grimshaw J, Wells G, et al. Development of AMSTAR:a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):10.
27. Centre for Reviews Dissemination. Systematic reviews:CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York(UK):CRD, University of York; 2009.
28. Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, et al. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(9):1076–1084.
29. Service providers and search interfaces. Available from:http://www.htai.org/vortal/?q=node/927
30. Fröschl B, Bornschein B, Brunner-Ziegler S, et al. Methodenhandbuch für health technology assessment version 1.2012. Wien:Gesundheit Österreich GmbH (GÖG); 2012.
31. Glanville J, Paisley S. Identifying economic evaluations for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(04):436–440. Available from:http://hta.lbg.ac.at/uploads/tableTool/UllCmsPage/gallery/Methodenhandbuch.pdf• Glanville et al. give a good overview on how to search for health economic literature in several databases.
32. Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari Sari A. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York (UK):Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD); 2009.
33. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Standard operating procedure for production of evidence notes (version 2.0). Edinburgh:Healthcare Improvement Scotland; 2012.
34. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Standard operating procedure for production of technologies scoping reports (version 1.0). Edinburgh (Scotland):Healthcare Improvement Scotland; 2012.
35. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to compare the costs and benefits:evaluation of the economic evidence. Canberra (Australia):National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); 2001.
36. NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. SIGN 50–a guideline developer’s handbook. Edinburgh(Scotland):NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS); 2011.
37. Kristensen F, Sigmund H. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen (Denmark):Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA), National Board of Health (NBoH); 2007.
38. Cleemput I, Van Den Bruel A, Kohn L, et al. Search for evidence & critical appraisal:health technology assessment (HTA). Brussels (Belgium):Belgian Federal Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2007.
39. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Byford S, et al. Incorporating economics evidence. In:Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2008;449–480. Available from:www.handbook.cochrane.org.
40. Mathes T, Walgenbach M, Antoine S-L, et al. Methods for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations a systematic review, comparison, and synthesis of method literature. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(7):826–840.•• An up-to-date publication reviewing, comparing, and synthesizing existing methods to systematic reviews of health economic evaluations.
41. Resources. Available from:http://www.c-cemg.org/home/resources
42. Porta MS. International epidemiological A:a dictionary of epidemiology. 5th ed. /edn ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press; 2008.
43. Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, et al. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2. Art. No.:MR000010. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000010.pub3. Available from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000010.pub3/epdf
44. CRD Database. Available from:http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/
45. Science citation index expanded. Available from; http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/scholarly-scientific-research/scholarly-search-and-discovery/science-citation-index-expanded.html
46. Eady AM, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. PsycINFO search strategies identified methodologically sound therapy studies and review articles for use by clinicians and researchers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(1):34–40.
47. Löhönen J, Isohanni M, Nieminen P, et al. Coverage of the bibliographic databases in mental health research. Nord J Psychiatry. 2010;64(3):181–188.
48. Ovid MEDLINE. Available from:gateway.ovid.com/autologin.html
49. Embase. Available from:www.embase.com
50. EconLit. Available from:https://www.aea-web.org/econlit/index.php
51. Web of science. Available from:https://apps.webofknowledge.com/UA_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&SID=3AbDfUY7pV3cFFrEDlg&preferencesSaved=
52. Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J, Non-inferiority of the Erasmus MC exhaustive search method:An inter-organizational comparison of the speed and quality of librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews. Submitted
53. McGowan J. For expert literature searching, call a librarian. CMAJ:Can Med Assoc J. 2001;165(10):1301–1302.
54. Bramer WM, Milic J, Mast F. Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using endnote. J Med Lib Assoc. accepted for publication. 2017;105(1).
55. Boeker M, Motschall E, Vach W. Literature search methodology for systematic reviews:conventional and natural language processing enabled methods are complementary (letter commenting on:J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:191-9). J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:253–255.
56. Hausner E, Guddat C, Hermanns T, et al. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews:validation showed the noninferiority of the objective approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(2):191–199.
57. Elsevier. A comparison of MeSH® and Emtree®. Elsevier; 2015. Available from:http://supportcontent.elsevier.com/Support%20Hub/Embase/Files%20&%20Attachements/4685-Embase_White%20Paper_Comparison%20of%20Emtree%20and%20MeSH_July%202015.pdf
58. Beale S, Duffy S, Glanville J, et al. Choosing and using methodological search filters:searchers’ views. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31(2):133–147.
59. Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, et al. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1(6):447–458.
60. Glanville J. Development and testing of search filters to identify economic evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE:Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Canada (Ottawa):Agence canadienne des médicaments et des technologies de la santé; 2009.• Background information on how to test and search filters to identify economic evaluations.
61. Boynton J, Glanville J, McDaid D, et al. Identifying systematic reviews in MEDLINE:developing an objective approach to search strategy design. J Inf Sci. 1998;24(3):137–154.
62. Camosso-Stefinovic J. Developing objectively derived search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE. MSci thesis Loughborough:Loughborough University, Department of Information and Library Studies; 2002.
63. Improving efficiency and confidence in systematic literature searching. Available from:http://de.slideshare.net/wichor
64. Russell R, Chung M, Balk EM, et al. Issues and challenges in conducting systematic reviews to support development of nutrient reference values:workshop summary:nutrition research series. Vol. 2. Rockville (MD):Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2009
65. Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, et al. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER:a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):1–10.
66. PICO search. Available from:https://www.embase.com/#picoSearch/default
67. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):944–952.
68. Home. Available from:https://www.nice.org.uk/
69. The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group search filter resource. Available from:https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home
70. Glanville J, Kaunelis D, Mensinkai S. How well do search filters perform in identifying economic evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(04):522–529.
71. Filters to find economic evaluations. Available from:https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/filters-to-find-i
72. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. PRESS peer review electronic search strategies:2015 guideline explanation and elaboration (PRESS E&E). Ottawa:CADTH; 2016.
73. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Lavis JN, et al. Optimal search strategies for detecting health services research studies in MEDLINE. Can Med Assoc J. 2004;171(10):1179–1185.
74. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Finding what works in health care standards for systematic reviews. Washington(D.C.):National Academies Press; 2011.
75. Sarawagi S, Bhamidipaty A. Interactive deduplication using active learning. In:Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada:ACM. 2002:269–278.
76. Miller MC. Reference management software:a review of endnote plus, reference manager, and pro-cite. MD Comput. 1994;11(3):161–168.
77. WorldCat. Available from:http://www.worldcat.org/
78. Bramer W, Holland L, Mollema J, et.al. Removing duplicates in retrieval sets from electronic databases:comparing the efficiency and accuracy of the Bramer-method with other methods and software packages. 2014. Available from:http://www.bmi-online.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/bramer-presentation-Removing-duplicates-in-retrieval-sets-from-electronic-databases-zonder-demo.pdf
79. Jiang Y, Lin C, Meng W, et al. Rule-based deduplication of article records from bibliographic databases. Database. 2014;2014:bat086.
80. Qi X, Yang M, Ren W, et al. Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases in systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71838.
81. Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association:JMLA, 2016;104(3):240.
82. Higgins J, Deeks JJ. Chapter 7:selecting studies and collecting data. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510 [updated March 2011]. Higgins J, Deeks JJ, Editors. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.•• This chapter of the Cochrane handbook specifically states how to search for studies.
83. Marshall C, Brereton P. Systematic review toolbox:a catalogue of tools to support systematic reviews. In:Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering:2015:ACM; 2015:23.
84. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-9, W64.
85. Hausner E, Waffenschmidt S. Response to letter by Boeker et al. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews:further issues regarding the objective and conceptual approaches. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:255–257.
86. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews:when is an update? Lancet. 2006;367(9514):881–883.
87. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):224–233.
88. Ahmadzai N, Newberry SJ, Maglione MA, et al. A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2(1):1.
89. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews:an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 2014;11(2):e1001603.
90. Tsertsvadze A, Chen Y-F, Moher D, et al. How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously? Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–6.
91. Elliott J, Sim I, Thomas J, et al. #CochraneTech:technology and the future of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;9:Ed000091.
92. Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, et al. The automation of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2013;346:f139
93. Topfer L-A, 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(02):297–303.
94. Sampson M, De Bruijn B, Urquhart C, et al. Complementary approaches to searching MEDLINE may be sufficient for updating existing systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. Available from:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435616300166
95. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford (London):Oxford University Press; 2005.
96. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford (London):Oxford university press; 2015.