Locating and Selecting Appraisal Studies for Reviews

Yoo, Hugo Hyung Bok; Queluz, Thaís Helena Abrahão Thomaz

doi:10.1378/chest.125.2.798

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results suggest that limiting a search to a single database will not provide a thorough summary of the existing literature, and support recommendations made by researchers of metaanalyses on randomized clinical trials to implement a comprehensive search of both electronic databases and the references in recent review articles and meta-analyses [20][21][22]. Based on our case studies, searches for observational studies limited to one or two databases-which appears to be the current standard practice -will retrieve only 60%-80% of the pertinent publications.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies

Lemeshow

Blum

Berlin

et al. 2005

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies

Lemeshow

Blum

Berlin

et al. 2005

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Searching a single database identifies a maximum of one-third of all relevant articles, and searching more databases may identify only half of all available articles [8]. A search conducted solely in MEDLINE results in database bias, as only 30%-80% of all trials are identifiable through MEDLINE [9]. Although the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions identifies MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials as the three main databases for searching any topic on medical intervention [3], the selection and usage of databases in some SRs and MAs still falls below this minimum recommendation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014

Lam

McDiarmid

2017

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the number of bibliographic databases used to search the health sciences literature in individual systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) changed over a twenty-year period related to the official 1995 launch of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).Methods: Ovid MEDLINE was searched using a modified version of a strategy developed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network to identify SRs and MAs. Records from 3 milestone years were searched: the year immediately preceding (1994) and 1 (2004) and 2 (2014) decades following the CDSR launch. Records were sorted with randomization software. Abstracts or full texts of the records were examined to identify database usage until 100 relevant records were identified from each of the 3 years. They employ reproducible methodology to identify all relevant studies, assess the validity of their findings, and combine the results to provide conclusive answers to clinical questions [3]. Once the literature has been systematically reviewed, quantitative data from individual studies may be pooled and reanalyzed using established statistical methods [4]. These reports are called meta-analyses (MAs), which are considered a subtype of SRs. The rationale for MAs is that combining samples of individual studies increases overall sample size, thereby improving the statistical power of the analysis and the precision of the estimates of treatment effects [5]. SRs and MAs are foundations of evidence-based medicine, as they rely on balanced inference generated from collated evidence instead of commentaries made by experts, as in the case of narrative reviews [6]. SRs and MAs have become increasingly popular for providing evidence of the effectiveness of medical interventions to support the creation of clinical practice guidelines. In 2010, an average of eleven new SRs or MAs were published each day [7].High-quality SRs require high-quality literature searches and accurate reporting. Searching a single database identifies a maximum of one-third of all relevant articles, and searching more databases may identify only half of all available articles [8]. A search conducted solely in MEDLINE results in database bias, as only 30%-80% of all trials are identifiable through MEDLINE [9]. Although the Cochrane 284

show abstract

There is No Evidence on the Effect of the Attachment System on Implant Survival Rate, Overdenture Maintenance, or Patient Satisfaction

Alqutaibi

2015

Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Locating and Selecting Appraisal Studies for Reviews

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies

Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies

Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014

There is No Evidence on the Effect of the Attachment System on Implant Survival Rate, Overdenture Maintenance, or Patient Satisfaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About