Journal
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 68, Issue 9, Pages 1076-1084Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.017
Keywords
Systematic review; Rapid review; Health technology assessment; Meta-analysis; Databases; Literature search; PubMed; EMBASE
Funding
- Lee Lusted Award
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objectives: Searching multiple sources when conducting systematic reviews is considered good practice. We aimed to investigate the impact of using sources beyond PubMed in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. Study Design and Setting: We randomly selected 50 Cochrane reviews that searched the PubMed (or MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases and included a meta-analysis of >= 10 studies. We checked whether each eligible record in each review (n = 2,700) was retrievable in PubMed and EMBASE. For the first-listed meta-analysis of >= 10 studies in each review, we examined whether excluding studies not found in PubMed affected results. Results: A median of one record per review was indexed in EMBASE but not in PubMed; a median of four records per review was not indexed in PubMed or EMBASE. Meta-analyses included a median of 13.5 studies; a median of zero studies per meta-analysis was indexed in EMBASE but not in PubMed; a median of one study per meta-analysis was not indexed in PubMed or EMBASE. Meta-analysis using only PubMed-indexed vs. all available studies led to a different conclusion in a single case (on the basis of conventional criteria for statistical significance). In meta-regression analyses, effects in PubMed- vs. non-PubMed-indexed studies were statistically significantly different in a single data set. Conclusion: For systematic reviews of the effects of therapeutic interventions, gains from searching sources beyond PubMed, and from searching EMBASE in particular are modest. (c) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available