ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional studyDownload the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3251FP4V

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Medicine and Dentistry, Faculty of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence (ARCHE)

The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Hartling, Lisa
Featherstone, Robin
Nuspl, Megan
Shave, Kassi
Dryden, Donna
Vandermeer, Ben
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
Systematic Reviews
Literature Searching
Meta-analysis
Knowledge Synthesis
Bias
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
Background: One of the best sources for high quality information about healthcare interventions is a systematic review. A well-conducted systematic review includes a comprehensive literature search. There is limited empiric evidence to guide the extent of searching, in particular the number of electronic databases that should be searched. We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative analysis to examine the potential impact of selective database searching on results of meta-analyses. Methods: Our sample included systematic reviews (SRs) with at least one meta-analysis from three Cochrane Review Groups: Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI), Infectious Diseases (ID), Developmental Psychosocial and Learning Problems (DPLP) (n = 129). Outcomes included: 1) proportion of relevant studies indexed in each of 10 databases; and 2) changes in results and statistical significance of primary meta-analysis for studies identified in Medline only and in Medline plus each of the other databases. Results: Due to variation across topics, we present results by group (ARI n = 57, ID n = 38, DPLP n = 34). For ARI, identification of relevant studies was highest for Medline (85 %) and Embase (80 %). Restricting meta-analyses to trials that appeared in Medline + Embase yielded fewest changes in statistical significance: 53/55 meta-analyses showed no change. Point estimates changed in 12 cases; in 7 the change was less than 20 %. For ID, yield was highest for Medline (92 %), Embase (81 %), and BIOSIS (67 %). Restricting meta-analyses to trials that appeared in Medline + BIOSIS yielded fewest changes with 1 meta-analysis changing in statistical significance. Point estimates changed in 8 of 31 meta-analyses; change less than 20 % in all cases. For DPLP, identification of relevant studies was highest for Medline (75 %) and Embase (62 %). Restricting meta-analyses to trials that appeared in Medline + PsycINFO resulted in only one change in significance. Point estimates changed for 13 of 33 meta-analyses; less than 20 % in 9 cases. Conclusions: Majority of relevant studies can be found within a limited number of databases. Results of meta-analyses based on the majority of studies did not differ in most cases. There were very few cases of changes in statistical significance. Effect estimates changed in a minority of meta-analyses but in most the change was small. Results did not change in a systematic manner (i.e., regularly over- or underestimating treatment effects), suggesting that selective searching may not introduce bias in terms of effect estimates.
Date created
2016
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3251FP4V
License information
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International
Rights

Citation for previous publication

Source

Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2016-10-04T19:50:42.421+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (Portable Document Format)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 469672
Last modified: 2016:10:04 13:50:48-06:00
Filename: Hartling_BMCMedResearchMethodology_2016.pdf
Original checksum: 3fe3044bf29a87295b33a3fb206f9802
Well formed: true
Valid: false
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=256185
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=256185
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=256185
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=256185
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=256185
File title: Abstract
File title: The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study
File author: Lisa Hartling
Page count: 13
File language: EN
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date