|
1000
|
Abstract/Summary
|
-
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Background</jats:title>
<jats:p>Systematic reviews (SRs) are used to inform clinical practice guidelines and healthcare decision making by synthesising the results of primary studies. Efficiently retrieving as many relevant SRs as possible is challenging with a minimum number of databases, as there is currently no guidance on how to do this optimally. In a previous study, we determined which individual databases contain the most SRs, and which combination of databases retrieved the most SRs. In this study, we aimed to validate those previous results by using a different, larger, and more recent set of SRs.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>We obtained a set of 100 Overviews of Reviews that included a total of 2276 SRs. SR inclusion was assessed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Epistemonikos. The mean inclusion rates (% of included SRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking. Features of SRs not identified by the best database combination were reviewed qualitatively.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>Inclusion rates of SRs were similar in all three databases (mean inclusion rates in % with 95% confidence intervals: 94.3 [93.9–94.8] for MEDLINE, 94.4 [94.0-94.9] for Embase, and 94.4 [93.9–94.9] for Epistemonikos). Adding reference checking to MEDLINE increased the inclusion rate to 95.5 [95.1–96.0]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (98.1 [97.7–98.5]). Among the 44/2276 SRs not identified by this combination, 34 were published in journals from China, four were other journal publications, three were health agency reports, two were dissertations, and one was a preprint. When discounting the journal publications from China, the SR inclusion rate in the recommended combination (MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and reference checking) was even higher than in the previous study (99.6 vs. 99.2%).</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title>
<jats:p>A combination of databases and reference checking was the best approach to searching for biomedical SRs. MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by checking the references of the included studies, was the most efficient and produced the highest recall. However, our results point to the presence of geographical bias, because some publications in journals from China were not identified.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Study registration</jats:title>
<jats:p><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink='http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink' ext-link-type='doi' xlink:href='10.17605/OSF.IO/R5EAS'>https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R5EAS</jats:ext-link> (Open Science Framework).</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
|
