Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology

Health Information and Libraries Journal

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 156-164

  Vassar, Matt ^a   Yerokhin, Vadim ^a   Sinnett, Philip Marcus ^a   Weiher, Matthew ^a   Muckelrath, Halie ^a   Carr, Branden ^a   Varney, Laura ^a   Cook, Gregory ^a  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

bibliometrics; database searching; evidence based medicine; health care; libraries; review and systematic search

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN; LITERATURE; MEDLINE; NEUROLOGY;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; MEDLINE; NEUROLOGY; PUBMED; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85017472585     PISSN: 14711834     EISSN: 14711842     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hir.12176     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Cochrane, A. L. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972.
2. The Cochrane Collaboration. Evidence-based health care and systematic reviews. 2014. http://community.cochrane.org/about-us/evidence-based-health-care. (Accessed: November 18, 2015)
3. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. & Rothstein, H. R. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Wiley Online Library, 2009.
4. Robinson, K. A. & Dickersin, K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. International Journal of Epidemiology 2002, 31, 150–153.
5. Mulrow, C. D. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994, 309, 597–599.
6. Higgins, J., Green, S. & Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. In: Higgins, J. P. T. & Green, S. (eds). Cochrane Book Series. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; Chichester, UK, 2011: 187–242.
7. Rethlefsen, M. L., Farrell, A. M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L. C. & Brigham, T. J. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015, 68, 617–626.
8. Koffel, J. B. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One 2015, 10, e0125931.
9. Sampson, M., Barrowman, N. J., Moher, D., Klassen, T., Pham, B., Platt, R., St John, P., Viola, R. & Raina, P. Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2003, 56, 943–955.
10. McGowan, J. & Sampson, M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2005, 93, 74–80.
11. Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., Kramer, B. M. & Anderson, P. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 2013, 2, 115.
12. Jones, C. W., Keil, L. G., Weaver, M. A. & Platts-Mills, T. F. Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis. Systematic Reviews 2014, 3, 126.
13. Xia, J., Wright, J. & Adams, C. E. Five large Chinese biomedical bibliographic databases: accessibility and coverage. Health Information & Libraries Journal 2008, 25, 55–61.
14. Cohen, J. F., Korevaar, D. A., Wang, J., Spijker, R. & Bossuyt, P. M. Should we search Chinese biomedical databases when performing systematic reviews? Systematic Reviews 2015, 4, 23.
15. Betran, A. P., Say, L., Gulmezoglu, A. M., Allen, T. & Hampson, L. Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2005, 5, 6.
16. Crumley, E. T., Wiebe, N., Cramer, K., Klassen, T. P. & Hartling, L. Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2005, 5, 24.
17. Beyer, F. R. & Wright, K. Can we prioritise which databases to search? A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. Health Information & Libraries Journal 2013, 30, 49–58.
18. Kwon, Y., Powelson, S. E., Wong, H., Ghali, W. A. & Conly, J. M. An assessment of the efficacy of searching in biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE in identifying studies for a systematic review on ward closures as an infection control intervention to control outbreaks. Systematic Reviews 2014, 3, 135.
19. Harzing, A. W. & Wal, R. V. d. A Google Scholar h-index for journals: an alternative metric to measure journal impact in Economics & Business? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60, 41–46.
20. Montori, V. M., Wilczynski, N. L., Morgan, D., Haynes, R. B. & Hedges, T. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005, 330, 68.
21. Lemeshow, A. R., Blum, R. E., Berlin, J. A., Stoto, M. A. & Colditz, G. A. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005, 58, 867–873.
22. Topfer, L. A., Parada, A., Menon, D., Noorani, H., Perras, C. & Serra-Prat, M. Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1999, 15, 297–303.
23. Watson, R. J. & Richardson, P. H. Identifying randomized controlled trials of cognitive therapy for depression: comparing the efficiency of Embase, Medline and PsycINFO bibliographic databases. British Journal of Medical Psychology 1999, 72 (Pt 4), 535–542.
24. Minasny, B., Hartemink, A. E., McBratney, A. & Jang, H. J. Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. PeerJ 2013, 1, e183.
25. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Fact Sheet – MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How are they different? 2015. Accessed: November 19, 2015.
26. Younger, P. & Boddy, K. When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG. Health Information & Libraries Journal 2009, 26, 126–135.
27. De Groote, S. L. PubMed, Internet Grateful Med, and Ovid: a comparison of three MEDLINE Internet interfaces. Medical Reference Services Quarterly 2000, 19, 1–13.