Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions

Halladay, Christopher; Trikalinos, Thomas A; Schmid, Ian; Schmid, Christopher H.; Dahabreh, Issa J

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.017

Cited by 131 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…sources other than PubMed) has only a small benefit. 7 However, this study included only randomized controlled trials, 7 which did not reflect the various study designs found within our included SR. Thus, until new and robust evidence on the minimum number of databases that should be searched is available, searching of several databases would be sensible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery

Faggion

et al. 2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results: A total of 85 systematic reviews were included. The median quality score of search strategies was 2 (interquartile range 5 2). Whilst 89% of systematic reviews reported the use of search terms, only 14% of systematic reviews reported searching the grey literature. Multiple linear regression analyses identified publication year (continuous variable), metaanalysis performance and journal impact factor (continuous variable) as predictors of higher mean quality scores. Conclusion: This study identified the urgent need to improve the quality of search strategies within systematic reviews published in the field of SRS. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first to address how authors performed searches to select clinical studies for inclusion in their systematic reviews. Comprehensive and well-implemented search strategies are pivotal to reduce the chance of publication bias and consequently generate more reliable systematic review findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery

Faggion

et al. 2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The noninclusion of SR from other databases, such as Cochrane reviews, may slightly reduce the number of SR we analyzed. However, new evidence shows that searching beyond major databases such as MEDLINE has increasingly limited returns for the amount of time taken [27]. As such, we believe that our search strategy of using MEDLINE and EMBASE augmented by hand searches through journals and references allowed us to identify a highly representative number of SR. For further research, because some evidence suggests that Cochrane reviews may have better methodological quality than those paper-based reviews [28,29], the comparison of a larger sample of Cochrane reviews to the present paper-based review sample would be interesting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The three least common topics were restorative dentistry (n=15; 2.3 %), pain (n=11; 1.7 %), and other unclassified studies (n=25; 3.9 %). Although the median number of studies per SR was [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28], the majority (70.2 %, n=450) included fewer than 24 studies in their review, while 2.0 % (n=13) included more than 100 studies. Most studies failed to describe study characteristics (88.2 %, n = 567), with terms such as Badults^(6.5 %, n = 42) or Bpaediatrics^(5.3 %, n = 34) populations used sparingly among the studies.…”

Section: Description Of Studies Meeting Our Inclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the impact of further data sources on search result was recently shown to be modest. 50 Moreover, the literature search was restricted to the period from 1993 to 2007 and was not updated later on because of the complexity to search for unpublished studies. As a consequence, we cannot present information on the current situation in this field.…”

Section: Non-publication Due To Loss Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the extent of unpublished studies in prognostic factor research: a systematic review of p53 immunohistochemistry in bladder cancer as an example

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWhen study groups fail to publish their results, a subsequent systematic review may come to incorrect conclusions when combining information only from published studies. p53 expression measured by immunohistochemistry is a potential prognostic factor in bladder cancer. Although numerous studies have been conducted, its role is still under debate. The assumption that unpublished studies too harbour evidence on this research topic leads to the question about the attributable effect when adding this information and comparing it with published data. Thus, the aim was to identify published and unpublished studies and to explore their differences potentially affecting the conclusion on its function as a prognostic biomarker.DesignSystematic review of published and unpublished studies assessing p53 in bladder cancer in Germany between 1993 and 2007.ResultsThe systematic search revealed 16 studies of which 11 (69%) have been published and 5 (31%) have not. Key reason for not publishing the results was a loss of interest of the investigators. There were no obviously larger differences between published and unpublished studies. However, a meaningful meta-analysis was not possible mainly due to the poor (ie, incomplete) reporting of study results.ConclusionsWithin this well-defined population of studies, we could provide empirical evidence for the failure of study groups to publish their results that was mainly caused by loss of interest. This fact may be coresponsible for the role of p53 as a prognostic factor still being unclear. We consider p53 and the restriction to studies in Germany as a specific example, but the critical issues are probably similar for other prognostic factors and other countries.

show abstract

Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions

Cited by 131 publications

References 21 publications

Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery

Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery

Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health

Assessment of the extent of unpublished studies in prognostic factor research: a systematic review of p53 immunohistochemistry in bladder cancer as an example

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About