Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in Overviews of reviews: A methodological study
View through CrossRef
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 systematic reviews. Our goal was to determine which databases indexed 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. Indexing of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, DARE, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP. The mean indexing rate (% of indexed systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with other databases and reference checking. Results Indexing of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean indexing 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 indexing 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 indexed in CINAHL and Embase, and one was indexed in the database ERIC. Conclusions MEDLINE/Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.
Title: Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in Overviews of reviews: A methodological study
Description:
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 systematic reviews.
Our goal was to determine which databases indexed 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.
Indexing of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, DARE, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP.
The mean indexing rate (% of indexed systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with other databases and reference checking.
Results Indexing of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean indexing 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 indexing 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 indexed in CINAHL and Embase, and one was indexed in the database ERIC.
Conclusions MEDLINE/Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.
Related Results
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED]Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies ==❱❱ Huge Discounts:[HURRY UP ] Absolute Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies (Available)Order Online Only!! ❰❰= https://www.facebook.com/Keanu-Reeves-CBD-G...
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods
Abstract
The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions ...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical activi...
The application of AMSTAR 2 in overviews of systematic reviews shows a need for improvement
The application of AMSTAR 2 in overviews of systematic reviews shows a need for improvement
Abstract
Background
Overviews of systematic reviews (SR) summarise and appraise the quality of research relevant for evidence-ba...
IMPACTO DEL SOLAPAMIENTO DE ESTUDIOS PRIMARIOS EN LA CONDUCCIÓN DE META-META-ANÁLISIS (META-ANÁLISIS DE META-ANÁLISIS)
IMPACTO DEL SOLAPAMIENTO DE ESTUDIOS PRIMARIOS EN LA CONDUCCIÓN DE META-META-ANÁLISIS (META-ANÁLISIS DE META-ANÁLISIS)
Introducción
Las overviews (revisión de revisiones sistemáticas (RSs)) son estudios secundarios de síntesis de evidencia de segundo orden, ya que su unidad de análisis son las revi...
The application of AMSTAR2 in 32 overviews of systematic reviews of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders: A cross‐sectional study
The application of AMSTAR2 in 32 overviews of systematic reviews of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders: A cross‐sectional study
Abstract‘A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, version 2’ (AMSTAR2) is a 16‐item tool to critically appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions. This s...
Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews
Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews
Abstract
Background
Along with other types of research, it has been stated that the extent of redundancy in systematic reviews has reached epidemic ...

