Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in Overviews of reviews: A methodological study

Abstract

Background: When conducting an Overviews of Reviews on health-related topics, it is unclear which combination of bibliographic databases authors should use for searching for SRs. Our goal was to determine which databases included the most systematic reviews and identify an optimal database combination for searching systematic reviews. Methods: A set of 86 Overviews of Reviews with 1219 included systematic reviews was extracted from a previous study. Inclusion of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP. The mean inclusion rate (% of included systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking. Results: Inclusion of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean inclusion rate 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [89.0–90.3%]). Combined with reference checking, this value increased to 93.7% [93.2–94.2%]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (99.2% [99.0–99.3%]). Stratification by Health Technology Assessment reports (97.7% [96.5–98.9%]) vs. Cochrane Overviews (100.0%) vs. non-Cochrane Overviews (99.3% [99.1–99.4%]) showed that inclusion was only slightly lower for Health Technology Assessment reports. However, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and reference checking remained the best combination. Among the 10/1219 systematic reviews not identified by this combination, five were published as websites rather than journals, two were included in CINAHL and Embase, and one was included in the database ERIC.Conclusions: MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking of included studies, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.

Overlaps of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking in dementia care research: a methodological study

“…Fourth, our study underlines the need to complement database searching with backward and forward citation tracking to retrieve all studies in our final sample. Other studies have already shown the benefit of using citation tracking [ 7 , 29 , 45 ]; however, based on our study, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the benefit of further supplementary search methods recommended by current methodological guidance such as handsearching or consultation of experts [ 6 ]. This should be considered in future methodological research related to study retrieval in dementia care.…”

“…To guide researchers, medical librarians or information specialists in choosing relevant databases, health-related research provides evidence on (1) coverage and overlaps of specific databases or how database usage can be optimally combined for efficient search strategies [ 19 – 23 ], and on (2) optimized search approaches to retrieve specific study designs such as qualitative studies [ 15 , 24 , 25 ], trials [ 10 , 26 – 28 ], reviews [ 29 ] or studies from specific countries [ 30 , 31 ]. Furthermore, there are clear guidelines on database use, e.g., for conducting Cochrane reviews [ 32 ].…”

Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: evaluation of prevalence, citation and impact factor

“…Overviews were retrieved using a validated search lter for overviews [15] from MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In an empirical methods study of the retrieval sensitivity of 6 databases, the combination of Medline and Epistemonikos retrieved 95.2% of all systematic reviews [16]. We are therefore con dent that using both a validated search lter and this proven database combination will retrieve the majority of published overviews of healthcare interventions and clinical treatment in the literature.…”

“…Other strengths include comprehensiveness of years searched, the large number of extracted articles (n=541), and our strict eligibility criteria for overviews. We also search a combination of databases (Medline, Epistemonikos and Cochrane) with a high sensitivity (over 95%) in retrieving overviews in all medical elds [16].…”

Dental patient reported outcome and oral health-related quality of life measures: protocol for a systematic evidence map of reviews

“…MEDLINE via PubMed and Epistemonikos will be searched, complemented by reference checking of included studies, as this has been identified as the best database combination to identify systematic reviews of health-related topics. 37 Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar will also be searched as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage in systematic reviews. The COSMIN database and PsycINFO will be included as our review topic is related to the focus of these databases.…”