Non-biomedical sources for systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policy

Greyson, Devon

doi:10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.021

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Searching multiple databases and using a checklist is recommended for systematic reviews [ 69 , 70 ]. Some non-biomedical sources need to be searched for pharmacologic policy [ 71 ]. Lam reported that the number of databases searched for systematic reviews has increased between 1994 and 2014 [ 72 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Spencer

Eldredge

2018

jmla

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveWhat roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians’ systematic reviews services.MethodsFor this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts.ResultsWe identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles.ConclusionLibrarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Spencer

Eldredge

2018

jmla

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would suffice for a narrative review, but is unlikely to be sufficiently comprehensive for a systematic review, particularly one focused on a question that is not purely biomedical or clinical in nature. The limited choice of databases searched (MEDLINE from the US and HMIC from the UK) likely resulted in failure to identify many European articles from locations other than the UK, as well as immunization program or policy literature published in other disciplines, which might have been captured in alternate databases [7]. This may have been exacerbated by the limited citation chaining and expert consultation, which could have helped point to relevant studies missed by the electronic search.…”

Section: Lack Of Congruency With Best Practices In Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review searches must be systematic, comprehensive, and transparent: a critique of Perman et al

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A high quality systematic review search has three core attributes; it is systematic, comprehensive, and transparent. The current over-emphasis on the primacy of systematic reviews over other forms of literature review in health research, however, runs the risk of encouraging publication of reviews whose searches do not meet these three criteria under the guise of being systematic reviews. This correspondence comes in response to Perman S, Turner S, Ramsay AIG, Baim-Lance A, Utley M, Fulop NJ. School-based vaccination programmes: a systematic review of the evidence on organization and delivery in high income countries. 2017; BMC Public Health 17:252, which we assert did not meet these three important quality criteria for systematic reviews, thereby leading to potentially unreliable conclusions. Our aims herein are to emphasize the importance of maintaining a high degree of rigour in the conduct and publication of systematic reviews that may be used by clinicians and policy-makers to guide or alter practice or policy, and to highlight and discuss key evidence omitted in the published review in order to contextualize the findings for readers. By consulting a research librarian, we identified limitations in the search terms, the number and type of databases, and the screening methods used by Perman et al. Using a revised Ovid MEDLINE search strategy, we identified an additional 1016 records in that source alone, and highlighted relevant literature on the organization and delivery of school-based immunization program that was omitted as a result. We argue that a number of the literature gaps noted by Perman et al. may well be addressed by existing literature found through a more systematic and comprehensive search and screening strategy. We commend both the journal and the authors, however, for their transparency in supplying information about the search strategy and providing open access to peer reviewer and editor’s comments, which enabled us to understand the reasons for the limitations of that review.

show abstract

“…Some nonbiomedical databases included in his study were ABI/Inform, EconLit, Web of Science, Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS) and Proquest Digital Dissertations and Theses. The article concluded that depending solely on Medline and Embase for research may be inadequate, and researchers should "consider including nonbiomedical databases, particularly economic and interdisciplinary databases in their search strategies" (Greyson, 2010).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Health Information Retrieval from Non-health Databases

Mgwigwi

2012

Partnership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the extent to which non-health databases index public health and health care related journals. The field of public health and health care is unique and multidisciplinary and therefore presents some challenges for researchers looking for published literature in the field. These challenges compel researchers to look beyond databases such as Medline and search a wide array of databases in various fields. A list of journal titles from non-health databases in various fields was used to compare title coverage in Ovid Medline to other databases. The databases used in this study were Canadian Business & Current Affairs (CBCA) Complete which is a multidisciplinary database; ABI/Inform covering business literature; Public Affairs Information Services (PAIS); EconLit; PsycInfo focusing only on public health journals and eliminating psychology specific journals; Sociological Abstracts; and Women's Studies International.

show abstract

Non-biomedical sources for systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policy

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Systematic review searches must be systematic, comprehensive, and transparent: a critique of Perman et al

Public Health Information Retrieval from Non-health Databases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About