scholarly journals Can database-level MEDLINE exclusion filters in Embase and CINAHL be used to remove duplicate records without loss of relevant studies in systematic reviews? An exploratory study

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-15
Author(s):  
Zahra Premji ◽  
Heather Ganshorn
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Small Risk ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Sample Set

Objective: To investigate whether using database filters to remove MEDLINE results within Embase (OVID) and CINAHL (EBSCO) would result in fewer records, without leading to any loss of studies included in the final review. Methods: We reviewed the included studies from a sample set of 20 Cochrane Reviews, and replicated the search strategies from those reviews in MEDLINE, Embase (both on the OVID platform) and CINAHL (EBSCO). Results were exported to EndNote; then relevant MEDLINE filters were applied within each database, and results were exported again. Filtered results were analysed to determine whether the filtered Embase and CINAHL results excluded relevant studies that were not identified in the original MEDLINE search.  Results: Using the “Records from: Embase” filter resulted in no loss of included studies; however, the “Exclude MEDLINE journals” filter in Embase resulted in a failure to retrieve a large number of relevant studies. CINAHL’s filter for MEDLINE records resulted in a very small number of studies being lost. Conclusions: The “Records from: Embase” filter may be safely used for deduplication, though as it removes conferences, searchers may also want to review Conference abstracts separately using the Conferences filter. CINAHL’s MEDLINE filter comes with a small risk of filtering out relevant studies, but may be appropriate to use. Though we did not set out to address this question, our results also demonstrate that it is not advisable to rely on an unfiltered search of Embase alone in order to identify all relevant studies.

scholarly journals WHICH DATABASES SHOULD BE USED TO IDENTIFY STUDIES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS?

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 547-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mick Arber ◽  
Julie Glanville ◽  
Jaana Isojarvi ◽  
Erin Baragula ◽  
Mary Edwards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Mean Sensitivity

Objectives:This study investigated which databases and which combinations of databases should be used to identify economic evaluations (EEs) to inform systematic reviews. It also investigated the characteristics of studies not identified in database searches and evaluated the success of MEDLINE search strategies used within typical reviews in retrieving EEs in MEDLINE.Methods:A quasi-gold standard (QGS) set of EEs was collected from reviews of EEs. The number of QGS records found in nine databases was calculated and the most efficient combination of databases was determined. The number and characteristics of QGS records not retrieved from the databases were collected. Reproducible MEDLINE strategies from the reviews were rerun to calculate the sensitivity and precision for each strategy in finding QGS records.Results:The QGS comprised 351 records. Across all databases, 337/351 (96 percent) QGS records were identified. Embase yielded the most records (314; 89 percent). Four databases were needed to retrieve all 337 references: Embase + Health Technology Assessment database + (MEDLINE or PubMed) + Scopus. Four percent (14/351) of records could not be found in any database. Twenty-nine of forty-one (71 percent) reviews reported a reproducible MEDLINE strategy. Ten of twenty-nine (34.5 percent) of the strategies missed at least one QGS record in MEDLINE. Across all twenty-nine MEDLINE searches, 25/143 records were missed (17.5 percent). Mean sensitivity was 89 percent and mean precision was 1.6 percent.Conclusions:Searching beyond key databases for published EEs may be inefficient, providing the search strategies in those key databases are adequately sensitive. Additional search approaches should be used to identify unpublished evidence (grey literature).

scholarly journals Heterogeneity in Search Strategies among Cochrane Acupuncture Reviews: Is There Room for Improvement?

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Lui ◽  
Erica J Smith ◽  
Mishka Terplan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
English Language ◽  
Chinese Language ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Primary Intervention ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Language Restriction ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

Objective Given the international focus and rigorous literature searches employed in Cochrane systematic reviews, this study was undertaken to evaluate strategies employed in Cochrane reviews and protocols assessing acupuncture as a primary or secondary intervention. Methods The Cochrane Collaboration of systematic reviews was searched in February 2009 for all reviews and protocols including information on acupuncture. Information was abstracted from all retrieved articles on review status, type and number of English and Chinese language databases searched, participation of at least one Chinese speaking author and language restriction. Frequencies were calculated and bivariate analyses were performed stratifying on interventions of interest to assess differences in search strategy techniques, language restrictions and results. Results The search retrieved 68 titles, including 48 completed reviews, 17 protocols and three previously withdrawn titles. Acupuncture was the primary intervention of interest in 44/65 (67.7%) of the retrieved reviews and protocols. While all articles searched at least one English language database, only 26/65 (40.0%) articles searched Chinese language databases. Significantly more articles where acupuncture was the primary intervention of interest searched Chinese language databases (53% vs 9%, p<0.01). Inconclusive findings as to the effectiveness of acupuncture were found in 28/48 (58.3%) of all completed reviews; this type of finding was more common in reviews which did not search any Chinese language databases. Conclusions It is important for reviews assessing the effectiveness of acupuncture to search Chinese language databases. The Cochrane Collaboration should develop specific criteria for Chinese language search strategies to ensure the continued publication of high-quality reviews.

Reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danah AlMubarak ◽  
Nikolaos Pandis ◽  
Martyn T Cobourne ◽  
Jadbinder Seehra
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

Summary Background This study aimed to assess the reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews (SRs) and hence their reproducibility. Materials and methods A search of a single electronic database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify interventional orthodontic SRs with meta-analysis published within a 10-year period. The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was also sourced. Full articles were reviewed by two assessors against the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality of each search strategy was assessed using a previously validated checklist with a score of 1 or 2 given for each of the eight items. Cumulative totals were calculated. Guided by previous research, the authors agreed the following cut-offs to categorize the overall level of quality: 8–10 (poor), 10–12 (fair), and greater than 13 (good). Results A total of 127 SRs were analysed. The overall median quality score for the reporting of the search strategy was 14 [interquartile range (IQR): 13–15]. Cochrane SRs and those originating in Europe received higher aggregate scores, whereas no difference was evident based on Prospero registration. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the overall score. Non-Cochrane reviews achieved lower overall scores compared to Cochrane reviews (−1.0, 95% confidence interval: −1.65, −0.34, P = 0.003). The most frequently searched database was EMBASE (N = 93) and the median number of authors was 5 (IQR 4–6). Authors of 26.8% of SRs searched the grey literature. Language restrictions were applied to the search strategies of 88 (69.3%) SRs. Conclusions The reporting quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic SRs is at a good level but differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews currently exist. The reporting of searching of the grey literature and application of no language restrictions can be improved.

Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations

1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 85-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Jefferson ◽  
Vittorio Demicheli ◽  
Daniela Rivetti ◽  
Jon Deeks
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

scholarly journals Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano Mascarenhas ◽  
Theodoros Kalampokas ◽  
Sesh Kamal Sunkara ◽  
Mohan S Kamath
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproduction ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Are systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions? SUMMARY ANSWER The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period in the field of assisted reproduction on the same topic had discordant conclusions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have now replaced individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the top of the evidence pyramid. There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, many of which suffer from methodological issues and provide varying conclusions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We assessed nine interventions in women undergoing ART with at least three systematic reviews each, published from January 2015 to December 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The systematic reviews which included RCTs were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was extent of concordance between systematic reviews on the same topic. Secondary outcomes included assessment of quality of systematic reviews, differences in included studies in meta-analyses covering the same search period, selective reporting and reporting the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Concordant results and conclusions were found in only one topic, with reviews in the remaining eight topics displaying partial discordance. The AMSTAR grading for the majority of the non-Cochrane reviews was critically low whilst it was categorized as high for all of the Cochrane reviews. For three of the nine topics, none of the included systematic reviews assessed the quality of evidence. We were unable to assess selective reporting as most of the reviews did not have a pre-specified published protocol. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We were limited by the high proportion of reviews lacking a pre-specified protocol, which made it impossible to assess for selective reporting. Furthermore, many reviews did not specify primary and secondary outcomes which made it difficult to assess reporting bias. All the authors of this review were Cochrane review authors which may introduce some assessment bias. The categorization of the review’s conclusions as beneficial, harmful or neutral was subjective, depending on the tone and wording of the conclusion section of the review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on the same topic in the field of assisted reproduction revealed discordant conclusions and suffered from serious methodological issues, hindering the process of informed healthcare decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) All the authors are Cochrane authors. M.S.K. is an editorial board member of Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. No grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was obtained.

scholarly journals Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Zhang ◽  
Margaret Sampson ◽  
Jessie McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Statistical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Statistical Decisions ◽  
Search Quality

Introduction - This study applied the principles of evidence based information practice to clarify the role of information specialists and librarians in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews and to determine whether information specialists impact the quality of searching in Cochrane systematic reviews. Objectives - This research project sought to determine how the contribution of the person responsible for searching in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews was reported; whether the contribution was recognized through authorship or acknowledgement; the qualifications of the searcher; and the association between the type of contributorship and characteristics of the search strategy, assessability, and the presence of certain types of errors. Methods - Data sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library 3 (2002). Inclusion criteria: The study included systematic reviews that met the following criteria: one or more sections of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy were utilised, primary studies were either randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, and included and excluded studies were clearly identified. Data extraction: Two librarians assessed the searches for errors, establishing consensus on discordant ratings. Results - Of the 169 reviews screened for this project, 105 met all eligibility criteria. Authors fulfilled the searching role in 41.9% of reviews studied, acknowledged persons or groups in 13.3%, a combination in 9.5%, and the role was not reported in 35.2% of reviews. For the 78 reviews in which meta-analyses were performed, the positions of those responsible for statistical decisions were examined for comparative purposes. The statistical role was performed by an author in 47.4% of cases and unreported in the same number of cases. Insufficient analyzable data was obtained regarding professional qualifications (3/105 for searching, 2/78 for statistical decisions). Search quality was assessed for 66 searches across 74 reviews. In general, it was more possible to assess the search quality when the searcher role was reported. An association was found between the reporting of searcher role and the presence of a consequential error. There was no association between the number of consequential errors and how the contribution of the searcher was reported. Conclusions - Qualifications of the persons responsible for searching and statistical decision-making were poorly reported in Cochrane reviews, but more complete role reporting is associated with greater assessability of searches and fewer substantive errors in search strategies.

scholarly journals What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about the clinical effectiveness of screening and diagnostic tests for cancer?

2017 ◽  
Vol 135 (4) ◽  
pp. 401-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Tito Pereira Bueno ◽  
Vladimir Lisboa Capelasso ◽  
Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽  
Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca ◽  
Tiago Biachi de Castria ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

ABSTRACT CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of screening tests for cancer is to detect it at an early stage in order to increase the chances of treatment. However, their unrestrained use may lead to unnecessary examinations, overdiagnosis and higher costs. It is thus necessary to evaluate their clinical effects in terms of benefits and harm. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of Cochrane systematic reviews, carried out in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: Cochrane reviews on the clinical effectiveness of cancer screening procedures were included. Study titles and abstracts were independently assessed by two authors. Conflicts were resolved by another two authors. Findings were summarized and discussed. RESULTS: Seventeen reviews were selected: fifteen on screening for specific cancers (bladder, breast, colorectal, hepatic, lung, nasopharyngeal, esophageal, oral, prostate, testicular and uterine) and two others on cancer in general. The quality of evidence of the findings varied among the reviews. Only two reviews resulted in high-quality evidence: screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for high-risk individuals seems to reduce lung cancer mortality; and screening using flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood tests seems to reduce colorectal cancer mortality. CONCLUSION: The evidence found through Cochrane reviews did not support most of the commonly used screening tests for cancer. It is recommended that patients should be informed of the possibilities of false positives and false negatives before they undergo the tests. Further studies to fully assess the effectiveness of cancer screening tests and adverse outcomes are required.

Update of Strategies to Translate Evidence from Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews for Use by Various Audiences

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 206-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Rader ◽  
Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Elizabeth Ghogomu ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Journal Club ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Clinical Scenarios

For rheumatology research to have a real influence on health and well-being, evidence must be tailored to inform the decisions of various audiences. The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. While systematic reviews provided by the CMSG fill a major gap in meeting the need for high-quality evidence syntheses, our work does not end at the completion of a review. The term “knowledge translation” (KT) refers to the activities involved in bringing research evidence to various audiences in a useful form so it can be used to support decision making and improve practices. Systematic reviews give careful consideration to research methods and analysis. Because the review is often long and detailed, the clinically relevant results may not be apparent or in the optimal form for use by patients and their healthcare practitioners. This paper describes 10 formats, many of them new, for ways that evidence from Cochrane Reviews can be translated with the intention of meeting the needs of various audiences, including patients and their families, practitioners, policy makers, the press, and members of the public (the “5 Ps”). Current and future knowledge tools include summary of findings tables, patient decision aids, plain language summaries, press releases, clinical scenarios in general medical journals, frequently asked questions (Cochrane Clinical Answers), podcasts, Twitter messages, Journal Club materials, and the use of storytelling and narratives to support continuing medical education. Future plans are outlined to explore ways of improving the influence and usefulness of systematic reviews by providing results in formats suitable to our varied audiences.

scholarly journals Cochrane i Norge - Hvordan formidler vi resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter?

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Glenton ◽  
Sarah Rosenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
English Summary ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Other Information ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

<p>Cochrane-systematiske oversikter oppleves ofte som lite tilgjengelige. En av hovedaktivitetene til det norske Cochrane-miljøet er å utvikle måter å presentere resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter på for at de lettere tas i bruk. Vi beskriver her fire hovedprinsipper for dette arbeidet, og gir eksempler på dokumentformater vi har vært med på å utvikle. De overordnete prinsippene er: 1) Informasjonen bør være forståelig for personer uten ekspertkunnskap om forskningsmetodikk. Vi har erfart at når det gjelder forståelsen av resultater fra systematiske oversikter går det største skillet mellom forskere og ikke-forskere og i mindre grad mellom ulike grupper som helsepersonell, pasienter og byråkrater. 2) Informasjonen bør presenteres på en mest mulig nøytral måte. 3) Informasjonen bør være brukertilpasset. Det innebærer at vi innhenter tilbakemeldinger fra sluttbrukere i utviklingsarbeidet og gjør nødvendige tilpasninger i flere omganger. 4) Informasjonsstrukturen bør følge ”1:3:25-prinsippet”. Her presenteres informasjonen både summarisk (1 side), kort oppsummert (3 sider), og mer utdypende (25 sider). I artikkelen beskriver vi flere presentasjonsformater vi har utviklet, blant annet ”Summary of Findings” der resultatene av Cochrane-oversikter presenteres i lettfattelige tabeller; ”plain language summaries”, som er tekstbaserte oppsummeringer rettet mot en bred lesergruppe; ”SUPPORT summaries” rettet mot byråkrater og ”policymakers”; og ”DECIDE Frameworks” der resultatene presenteres sammen med annen informasjon som er relevant i en beslutningsprosess.</p><p>Glenton C, Rosenbaum S. <strong>Cochrane in Norway – How do we disseminate findings from Cochrane reviews?</strong> <em>Nor J Epidemiol</em> 2013; <strong>23</strong> (2): 215-219.</p><p><strong>ENGLISH SUMMARY</strong></p><p>Cochrane systematic reviews are often perceived as inaccessible. One of the main activities of the Norwegian branch of the Cochrane Collaboration is to develop ways to present the results of Cochrane reviews so that they are easier to use. In this paper we describe four main principles that underlie this work, and several of the document formats we have helped produce. Our overarching principles: 1) Information should be understandable for people who do not have expert knowledge about research methodology. When it comes to understanding the results of systematic reviews, we have experienced that the biggest difference is between researchers and non-researchers and to a lesser extent between health personnel, patients and policy makers. 2) Information should be presented in a neutral form. 3) Information should be developed using a user-oriented approach. This involves us collecting responses from the end users in our developmental work and making the necessary adjustments in several phases. 4) The information structure should follow the “1:3:25 principle” where the information is structured in several layers, with increasing level of detail. In this paper, we describe several of the document formats that we have helped develop, including Summary of Findings tables, where we present the results of Cochrane reviews in tables; a plain language summary format where the results are presented as text-based summaries written for a broad user group; SUPPORT summaries written for policy makers; and DECIDE Frameworks, where the results are presented together with other information that may be relevant in a decision making process.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document