Searching for and selecting studies

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Volumn , Issue , 2019, Pages 67-107

  Lefebvre, Carol ^a   Glanville, Julie ^b   Briscoe, Simon ^c   Littlewood, Anne ^d   Marshall, Chris ^e   Metzendorf, Maria Inti ^f   Noel Storr, Anna ^g   Rader, Tamara ^h   Shokraneh, Farhad ⁱ   Thomas, James ^j   Susan Wieland, L ^k  

^a Lefebvre Associates Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^e NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^h CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH   (Canada)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^k UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Cochrane reviews; Healthcare librarians; Review authors; Review update; Review s eligibility criteria; Search documentation; Search strategies; Study awaiting assessment; Study selection; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

EID: 85099925021     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781119536604.ch4     Document Type: Chapter

References (125)

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews: AHRQ publication no. 10(14)-EHC063-EF. 2014. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/cer-methods-guide/overview.
2. Arber M, Cikalo M, Glanville J, Lefebvre C, Varley D, Wood H. Annotated bibliography of published studies addressing searching for unpublished studies and obtaining access to unpublished data. 2013. https://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org. irmg/files/public/uploads/Annotatedbibliographtifyingunpublishedstudies.pdf.
3. Atkinson KM, Koenka AC, Sanchez CE, Moshontz H, Cooper H. Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate. Research Synthesis Methods 2015; 6:87-95.
4. Bai Y, Gao J, Zou D, Li Z. Is MEDLINE alone enough for a meta-analysis? Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2007; 26:125-126; author reply 126.
5. Baudard M, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Perrodeau E, Boutron I. Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 2017; 356:j448.
6. Bennett DA, Jull A. FDA: untapped source of unpublished trials. Lancet 2003; 361:1402-1403.
7. Bero L. Searching for unpublished trials using trials registers and trials web sites and obtaining unpublished trial data and corresponding trial protocols from regulatory agencies. 2013. http://web.archive.org/web/20150108071243/http://methods.cochrane. org:80/projects-developments/searching-unpublished-trials-using-trials-registers-andtrials- web-sites-and-o.
8. Booth A. How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2010; 26:431-435.
9. Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews 2016; 5:74.
10. Bramer WM. Variation in number of hits for complex searches in Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2016; 104:143-145.
11. Briscoe S. A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods 2018; 9:89-99.
12. Brusselle GG, Blasi F. Risk of a biased assessment of the evidence when limiting literature searches to the English language: macrolides in asthma as an illustrative example. Pulmonary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2015; 31:109-110.
13. Chan AW. Out of sight but not out of mind: how to search for unpublished clinical trial evidence. BMJ 2012; 344:d8013.
14. Chapman SJ, Shelton B, Mahmood H, Fitzgerald JE, Harrison EM, Bhangu A. Discontinuation and non-publication of surgical randomised controlled trials: observational study. BMJ 2014; 349:g6870.
15. Chilcott J, Brennan A, Booth A, Karnon J, Tappenden P. The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 2003; 7:iii, 1-125.
16. Chow TK. Electronic search strategies should be repeatable. European Journal of Pain 2015; 19:1562-1563.
17. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G, Clifton J, BuckinghamL, Willan A, McIlroy W, Oxman AD. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA 1993; 269:2749-2753.
18. Cooper H, Ribble RG. Influences on the outcome of literature searches for integrative research reviews. Science Communication 1989; 10:179-201.
19. Craven J, Levay P. Recording database searches for systematic reviews - what is the value of adding a narrative to peer-review checklists? A case study of NICE interventional procedures guidance. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2011; 6:72-87.
20. de Vet H, Eisinga A, Riphagen I, Aertgeerts B, Pewsner D. Chapter 7: Searching for studies. In:Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 04 (updated September 2008): The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. https://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.sdt/ files/public/uploads/Chapter07-Searching-%28September-2008%29.pdf.
21. Dellavalle RP, Hester EJ, Heilig LF, Drake AL, Kuntzman JW, Graber M, Schilling LM. Information science. Going, going, gone: lost Internet references. Science 2003; 302:787-788.
22. Doshi P, Dickersin K, Healy D, Vedula SS, Jefferson T. Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings. BMJ 2013; 346:f2865.
23. Doust JA, Pietrzak E, Sanders S, Glasziou PP. Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstract. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58:444-449.
24. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337:867-872.
25. Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:1635-1640.
26. Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997; 350:326-329.
27. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 1998; 316:61-66.
28. Elsevier. Embase content 2016a. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/embase-biomedicalresearch/ embase-coverage-and-content.
29. Elsevier. Embase classic fact sheet 2016b. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0005/58982/R_D-Solutions_Embase_Fact-Sheet_Classic-DIGITAL.pdf.
30. EUnetHTA. Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness (Version 1.2). Germany: European network for Health Technology Assessment; 2017. https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/01/Guideline_Information_Retrieval_V1-2_2017.pdf.
31. European Food Safety Authority. Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA Journal 2010; 8:1637. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1637.www.efsa.europa.eu.
32. Eysenbach G, Trudel M. Going, going, still there: using the WebCite service to permanently archive cited web pages. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2005; 7:e60.
33. Franco JVA, Garrote VL, Escobar Liquitay CM, Vietto V. Identification of problems in search strategies in Cochrane Reviews. Research Synthesis Methods 2018; 9:408-416.
34. Glanville J, Lefebvre C, Wright Ke, editors. ISSG search filter resource York (UK): The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group 2019. https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac. uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home.
35. Glanville JM, Duffy S, McCool R, Varley D. Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches? Journal of the Medical Library Association 2014; 102:177-183.
36. Goldacre B, Lane S, Mahtani KR, Heneghan C, Onakpoya I, Bushfield I, Smeeth L. Pharmaceutical companies’ policies on access to trial data, results, and methods: audit study. BMJ 2017; 358:j3334.
37. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 2005; 331:1064-1065.
38. Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kirk S. The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PloS One 2015; 10:e0138237.
39. Halfpenny NJ, Quigley JM, Thompson JC, Scott DA. Value and usability of unpublished data sources for systematic reviews and network meta-analyses. Evidence-Based Medicine 2016; 21:208-213.
40. Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, Schmid CH, Dahabreh IJ. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015; 68:1076-1084.
41. Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2016; 16:127.
42. Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017; 17:64.
43. Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, Meinert CL. Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics 1989; 84:374-380.
44. Hinde S, Spackman E. Bidirectional citation searching to completion: an exploration of literature searching methods. Pharmacoeconomics 2015; 33:5-11.
45. Horton R. Medical editors trial amnesty. Lancet 1997; 350:756.
46. Huang X, Lin J, Demner-Fushman D. Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questions. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings/AMIA Symposium 2006:359-363.
47. Hwang TJ, Carpenter D, Lauffenburger JC, Wang B, Franklin JM, Kesselheim AS. Failure of investigational drugs in late-stage clinical development and publication of trial results. JAMA Internal Medicine 2016; 176:1826-1833.
48. Iansavichene AE, Sampson M, McGowan J, Ajiferuke IS. Should systematic reviewers search for randomized, controlled trials published as letters? Annals of Internal Medicine 2008; 148:714-715.
49. Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. http://books.nap.edu/openbook. php?record_id=13059
50. Irvin E, Hayden J. Developing and testing an optimal search strategy for identifying studies of prognosis [Poster]. 14th Cochrane Colloquium; 2006 October 23-26; Dublin, Ireland; 2006. https://abstracts.cochrane.org/2006-dublin/developing-and-testing-optimalsearch- strategy-identifying-studies-prognosis.
51. Isojarvi J, Wood H, Lefebvre C, Glanville J. Challenges of identifying unpublished data from clinical trials: getting the best out of clinical trials registers and other novel sources. Research Synthesis Methods 2018; 9:561-578.
52. Jefferson T, Doshi P, Boutron I, Golder S, Heneghan C, Hodkinson A, Jones M, Lefebvre C, Stewart LA. When to include clinical study reports and regulatory documents in systematic reviews. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2018; 23:210-217.
53. Jiao S, Tsutani K, Haga N. Review of Cochrane reviews on acupuncture: how Chinese resources contribute to Cochrane reviews. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2013; 19:613-621.
54. Kaptchuk T. Certain countries produce only positive trial results. Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies 1999; 4:86-87.
55. Kastner M, Straus SE, McKibbon KA, Goldsmith CH. The capture-mark-recapture technique can be used as a stopping rule when searching in systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009; 62:149-157.
56. Knelangen M, Hausner E, Metzendorf M-I, Sturtz S, Waffenschmidt S. Trial registry searches for randomized controlled trials of new drugs required registry-specific adaptation to achieve adequate sensitivity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2018; 94:69-75.
57. Köhler M, Haag S, Biester K, Brockhaus AC, McGauran N, Grouven U, Kölsch H, Seay U, Hörn H, Moritz G, Staeck K, Wieseler B. Information on new drugs at market entry: retrospective analysis of health technology assessment reports versus regulatory reports, journal publications, and registry reports. BMJ 2015; 350:h796.
58. Kreis J, Panteli D, Busse R. How health technology assessment agencies address the issue of unpublished data. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2014; 30:34-43.
59. Lampert A, Hoffmann GF, Ries M. Ten years after the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ clinical trial registration initiative, one quarter of phase 3 pediatric epilepsy clinical trials still remain unpublished: a cross sectional analysis. PloS One 2016; 11:e0144973.
60. Layton D. A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: are systematic reviews actually systematic? International Journal of Prosthodontics 2017; 30:13-21.
61. Lee K, Bacchetti P, Sim I. Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis. PLoS Medicine 2008; 5:e191.
62. Lefebvre C, Eisinga A, McDonald S, Paul N. Enhancing access to reports of randomized trials published world-wide - the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2008; 5:13.
63. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Wieland LS, Coles B, Weightman AL. Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future? Systematic Reviews 2013; 2:78.
64. Littlewood A, Bridges C, for the Cochrane Information Specialist Support Team. Cochrane Information Specialists’ Handbook Oslo: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2017. http://training.cochrane.org/resource/cochrane-information-specialists-handbook.
65. Lorenc T, Tyner EF, Petticrew M, Duffy S, Martineau FP, Phillips G, Lock K. Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: systematic review of qualitative evidence. European Journal of Public Health 2014; 24:1041-1047.
66. Lorenzetti DL, Topfer LA, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than MEDLINE for rapid health technology assessments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2014; 30:173-178.
67. MacLean CH, Morton SC, Ofman JJ, Roth EA, Shekelle PG; Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center. How useful are unpublished data from the Food and Drug Administration in meta-analysis? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2003; 56:44-51.
68. Manheimer E, Anderson D. Survey of public information about ongoing clinical trials funded by industry: evaluation of completeness and accessibility. BMJ 2002; 325:528-531.
69. Marshall C, Brereton P. Systematic review toolbox: a catalogue of tools to support systematic reviews. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) 2015: Article no. 23.
70. Marshall I, Noel-Storr A, Kuiper J, Thomas J, Wallace BC. Machine learning for identifying randomized controlled trials: an evaluation and practitioner’s guide. Research Synthesis Methods 2018; 9:602-614.
71. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel D, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Explanation and Elaboration (PRESS E&E). Ottawa: CADTH; 2016a. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/CP0015_PRESS_Update_Report_ 2016.pdf.
72. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016b; 75:40-46.
73. Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2016; 104:267-277.
74. Metzendorf M-I. Why medical information specialists should routinely form part of teams producing high quality systematic reviews - a Cochrane perspective. Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries 2016; 12(4): 6-9.
75. Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technology Assessment 2003; 7:1-90.
76. Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, Moulton K, Clark M, Fiander M, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Clifford T, Hutton B, Rabb D. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2012; 28:138-144.
77. Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz N, Lyles CM. Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible? Research Synthesis Methods 2014; 5:116-130.
78. Niederstadt C, Droste S. Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2010; 26:450-457.
79. O’Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Systematic Reviews 2015; 4:5. (Erratum in: Systematic Reviews 2015; 4: 59).
80. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The science of reviewing research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1993; 703:125-133; discussion 133-134.
81. Pansieri C, Pandolfini C, Bonati M. Clinical trial registries: more international, converging efforts are needed. Trials 2017; 18:86.
82. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Oxford (UK): Blackwell; 2006.
83. Pham B, Klassen TP, Lawson ML, Moher D. Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58:769-776.
84. Pilkington K, Boshnakova A, Clarke M, Richardson J. ‘No language restrictions’ in database searches: what does this really mean? Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2005; 11:205-207.
85. Rader T, Mann M, Stansfield C, Cooper C, Sampson M. Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of common issues. Research Synthesis Methods 2014; 5:98-115.
86. Relevo R, Paynter R. Peer Review of Search Strategies. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK98353/.
87. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015; 68:617-626.
88. Reveiz L, Cardona AF, Ospina EG, de Agular S. An e-mail survey identified unpublished studies for systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59:755-758.
89. Rice DB, Kloda LA, Levis B, Qi B, Kingsland E, Thombs BD. Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools? A review of meta-analyses. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2016; 87:7-13.
90. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club 1995; 123:A12-13.
91. Roundtree AK, Kallen MA, Lopez-Olivo MA, Kimmel B, Skidmore B, Ortiz Z, Cox V, Suarez-Almazor ME. 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.
92. Royle P, Milne R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2003; 19:591-603.
93. Sampson M, Barrowman NJ, Moher D, Klassen TP, Pham B, Platt R, St John PD, Viola R, Raina P. Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2003; 56:943-955.
94. Sampson M, Zhang L, Morrison A, Barrowman NJ, Clifford TJ, Platt RW, Klassen TP, Moher D. An alternative to the hand searching gold standard: validating methodological search filters using relative recall. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2006; 6:33.
95. Sampson M, McGowan J. Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59:1057-1063.
96. 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.
97. Sampson M, McGowan J. Inquisitio validus Index Medicus: a simple method of validating MEDLINE systematic review searches. Research Synthesis Methods 2011; 2:103-109.
98. Sampson M, de Bruijn B, Urquhart C, Shojania K. Complementary approaches to searching MEDLINE may be sufficient for updating systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016; 78:108-115.
99. Scherer RW, Ugarte-Gil C, Schmucker C, Meerpohl JJ. Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015; 68:803-810.
100. Schroll JB, Bero L, Gøtzsche PC. Searching for unpublished data for Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study. BMJ 2013; 346:f2231.
101. Shemilt I, Simon A, Hollands GJ, Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, O’Mara-Eves A, Kelly MP, Thomas J. Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews. Research Synthesis Methods 2014; 5:31-49.
102. Shemilt I, Khan N, Park S, Thomas J. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the efficiency of study identification methods in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 2016; 5:140.
103. Spoor P, Airey M, Bennett C, Greensill J, Williams R. Use of the capture-recapture technique to evaluate the completeness of systematic literature searches. BMJ 1996; 313:342-343.
104. Spry C, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Rabb D. Peer review of literature search strategies: does it make a difference? 21st Cochrane Colloquium; 2013; Quebec City, Canada. https:// abstracts.cochrane.org/2013-québec-city/peer-review-literature-search-strategies-doesit- make-difference.
105. Stevinson C, Lawlor DA. Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns? Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2004; 12:228-232.
106. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Controlled Clinical Trials 2000; 21:476-487.
107. Thomas J, Noel-Storr A, Marshall I, Wallace B, McDonald S, Mavergames C, Glasziou P, Shemilt I, Synnot A, Turner T, Elliott J; Living Systematic Review Network. Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2017; 91:31-37.
108. Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ 1997; 315:635-640.
109. Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E. Systematic review automation technologies. Systematic Reviews 2014; 3:74.
110. US National Library of Medicine. PubMed. 2018https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/ pubmed.html.
111. US National Library of Medicine. MEDLINE®: Description of the Database. 2019. https://www. nlm.nih.gov/bsd/medline.html.
112. US National Library of Medicine. Fact Sheet: MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central):How are they different? no date. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/difference.html.
113. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1998; 19:159-166.
114. Viergever RF, Li K. Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013. BMJ Open 2015; 5:e008932.
115. von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, Tramèr MR. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA 2004; 291:974-980.
116. Wallace S, Daly C, Campbell M, Cody J, Grant A, Vale L, Donaldson C, Khan I, Lawrence P, MacLeod A. After MEDLINE? Dividend from other potential sources of randomised controlled trials. Second International Conference Scientific Basis of Health Services & Fifth Annual Cochrane Colloquium; 1997; Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
117. Wang Z, Brito JP, Tsapas A, Griebeler ML, Alahdab F, Murad MH. Systematic reviews with language restrictions and no author contact have lower overall credibility: amethodology study. Clinical Epidemiology 2015; 7:243-247.
118. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 1998; 280:257-259.
119. Wieseler B, Kerekes MF, Vervoelgyi V, McGauran N, Kaiser T. Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison of registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications. BMJ 2012; 344:d8141.
120. Witkowski MA, Aldhouse N. Transparency and reproducibility of supplementary search methods in NICE single technology appraisal manufacturer submissions. Value in Health 2015; 18:A721-722.
121. Wood H, Arber M. Search strategy development [webpage]. In: Summarized Research in Information Retrieval for HTA (SuRe Info) 2009. Last updated 2019. http://www.htai.org/ vortal/?q=node/790.
122. Woods D, Trewheellar K. Medline and Embase complement each other in literature searches. BMJ 1998; 316:1166.
123. Wu XY, Tang JL, Mao C, Yuan JQ, Qin Y, Chung VC. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine must search Chinese databases to reduce language bias. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2013: 812179.
124. Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, Anderson MJ, Wellik KE. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2009; 97:21-29.
125. Young T, Hopewell S. Methods for obtaining unpublished data. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011; 11:MR000027.