The impact of third-hand smoke education in a pediatric emergency department on caregiver smoking policies and quit status: a pilot study

The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews

“…Fourteen studies were not identified by the parallel review [ 36 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 55 – 57 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 67 , 70 ].…”

“…The following three articles, which appeared in Baxi’s review, but were not identified by Rosen’s electronic search, were not identified due to issues with filters, index terms or free-text search terms: The Patel study [ 55 ] was in EMBASE at the time of Rosen’s search. Though the Abstract and Methods sections stated that participants had been randomized to intervention or control groups, and the study design was therefore a randomized controlled trial (RCT), there was no mention of RCT in the Abstract or title.…”

“…The Patel study [ 55 ] was in EMBASE at the time of Rosen’s search. Though the Abstract and Methods sections stated that participants had been randomized to intervention or control groups, and the study design was therefore a randomized controlled trial (RCT), there was no mention of RCT in the Abstract or title.…”

“…We found that omissions were attributable to: review scope (9 studies, 26 %) [ 40 , 42 – 44 , 46 , 47 , 56 , 64 , 70 ], outcomes of interest not measured (8 studies, 23 %) [ 38 , 41 , 45 , 50 , 54 , 58 , 59 , 68 ], exclusion of reports with inadequate reporting (6 studies, 17 %) [ 39 , 48 , 51 , 52 , 61 , 69 ], mixed or unclear reasons (3 studies, 8 %) [ 60 , 63 , 66 ], search strategies concerning filters, tagging, and keywords (3 studies, 8 %) [ 55 , 57 , 65 ], search strategies regarding sources: PUBMED not searched (2 studies, 6 %) [ 49 , 62 ]; discordant interpretation of same eligibility criteria (2 studies, 6 %) [ 37 , 53 ]; and non-identification due to non-specific study topic. (2 studies, 6 %) [ 36 , 67 ].…”

“…It is not possible to give a definitive answer to this question, but we tried to assess the possible impact of the unidentified studies. ROSEN: Of the studies not identified by Rosen, three would have been excluded on the basis of inclusion criteria (age: Elder [ 44 ], Zhang [ 70 ], minimum follow-up: Pulley [ 57 ]), five on the basis of goals (postpartum relapse: French [ 46 ], Hannover [ 47 ], Phillips [ 56 ], Van’t Hopf [ 64 ], cessation of young mothers Davis [ 42 ]), one due to broad goals with no measured outcomes of interest (Wiggens [ 67 ]), two due to poor reporting (no reports on relevant outcomes at study end for all randomized participants (Vineis [ 65 ], Patel [ 55 ]). One study (Armstrong [ 36 ]) had general goals and included relevant data; whether it would have been included would have required a judgement call.…”