Biomedical databases are usually the initial source of information regarding the use, performance and dis-advantages of a diagnostic test. A fast and easy research tool for nursing and allied health professionals with access to content coverage including over 50 nursing specialties, speech and language pathology, nutrition, general health and medicine and . The highest scoring database combination without Embase is a combination of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, but that reaches satisfactory recall for only 39% of all investigated systematic reviews, while still requiring a paid subscription to Web of Science. Until 2016, the most complete MEDLINE selection in Ovid still lacked the electronic publications that were already available in PubMed. Kr Mo@h(fW"\x| Tu?g n=~?@(wg Most of the previous studies did not include these two databases in their research. Created by the National Library of Medicine,MEDLINEuses MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) indexing with tree, tree hierarchy, subheadings and explosion capabilities to search citations from over 4,800 current biomedical journals. &Jl1/>nw\CCX=prz Dcr8UBW3L`Du8*r (+P/:SXQB^ We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. Privacy Syst Rev. [16] concluded that databases other than MEDLINE/PubMed did not change the outcomes of the review, while Rice et al. Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, Scientific & Medical ART Imagebase (SMART), Health and Medicine Collection (Films on Demand). We are not implying that a combined search of the four recommended databases will never result in relevant references being missed, rather that failure to search any one of these four databases will likely lead to relevant references being missed. In general, we use the first 200 references as sorted in the relevance ranking of Google Scholar. The reviews covered a wide variety of disease, none of which was present in more than 12% of the reviews. The other study from the Journal of Advanced Nursing is indexed in MEDLINE and Embase but was only retrieved because of the addition of KeyWords Plus in Web of Science. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. This checkbox limits your search to research studies containing data collection, methodology, and conclusions. BMC Med Res Methodol. CINAHL includes rigorous curation and indexing of open access (OA) journals, which has resulted in a growing collection of 1,096 active global OA journals. The ratio between number of results per database combination and the total number of results for all databases, The ratio between precision per database combination and the total precision for all databases. T4: ieJ{rL;(N2:vIW(r]/[XupYo%$7^Qfo+hwy b "\*jn7N gx+]Bm+s[j9VPg/vw|u>$/a}:i)&b2#4+'{3O$=n#laK5qn9` 0*^0*I6DlBy Stroke. and transmitted securely. 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. Unique results from specialized databases that closely match systematic review topics, such as PsycINFO for reviews in the fields of behavioral sciences and mental health or CINAHL for reviews on the topics of nursing or allied health, indicate that specialized databases should be used additionally when appropriate. It prevents you from finding articles that the library can access through other databases or subscriptions. A pragmatic evaluation of a new method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews. Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. A multi-disciplinary database, with more than 6,100 full-text periodicals, including more than 5,100 peer-reviewed journals. Complexity The provision of the functionality we expect of a good DBMS makes the DBMS an extremely complex piece of software. To learn more about Boolean operators, please see this Quick Answer: Here is an example of how to put together a complex search in CINAHL: Note: If you have not already logged in to the Library databases, you will be prompted to log in with your myWalden Portal user name and password. Investigators and information specialists searching for relevant references for a systematic review (SR) are generally advised to search multiple databases and to use additional methods to be able to adequately identify all literature related to the topic of interest [1,2,3,4,5,6]. We find that Embase is critical for acceptable recall in a review and should always be searched for medically oriented systematic reviews. A systematic approach to searching: how to perform high quality literature searches more efficiently. PubMed Central (PMC) is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM). [26] found that Cochrane CENTRAL included 95% of all RCTs included in the reviews investigated. 11 reviews, where we were able to recheck all the databases used by the original review authors, had included a study that was uniquely identified from the CINAHL database. The other authors declare no competing interests. The databases avail-able include the Cochrane Collaboration, Medline (in various forms such as PubMed), Best Evidence10and Embase.The most widely used and most often recom-mended database isMedline. Bull Med Libr Assoc. The searcher in the case of all 58 systematic reviews is an experienced biomedical information specialist. In short, the method consists of an efficient way to combine thesaurus terms and title/abstract terms into a single line search strategy. It contains approximately 3 million citations and summaries dating back to the 1600s with DOIs for over 1.4 million records. :p#("-!r>5"@5Ip^P|~1zsqE- @QK The X-axis represents the percentage of reviews for which a specific combination of databases, as shown on the y-axis, reached a certain recall (represented with bar colors). Based on our calculations made by looking at random systematic reviews in PubMed, we estimate that 60% of these reviews are likely to have missed more than 5% of relevant references only because of the combinations of databases that were used. MEDLINEprovides authoritative medical information on medicine, nursing, dentistry, veterinary medicine, the health care system, pre-clinical sciences, and much more. It is therefore important to search MEDLINE including the Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations references. For example, in 48% of all systematic reviews, the combination of Embase and MEDLINE (with or without Cochrane CENTRAL; Cochrane CENTRAL did not add unique relevant references) reaches a recall of at least 95%. Other databases that we identified as essential for good recall were searched much less frequently; Embase was searched in 61% and Web of Science in 35%, and Google Scholar was only used in 10% of all reviews. 2004;12:22832. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BMR. 2006 Jul;59(7):710-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.09.013. scott burns lincoln ventures. Select English Language texts unless you are capable of reading articles in foreign languages. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). J Clin Epidemiol. Almost all reviews (97%) reported a search in MEDLINE. 2016 Feb 9;5:27. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0197-5. Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns? To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. These could be retrieved by searching PubMed with the subset as supplied by publisher. 2015;68:61726. Careers. Figure1 shows the percentages of reviews where a certain database combination led to a certain recall. Technical Problems Every computer system will have a breakdown. Beginning in May 2013, the number of records retrieved from each search for each database was recorded at the moment of searching. All searches in this study were developed and executed by W.M.B. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Of the individual databases, Embase had the highest overall recall (85.9%). For all individual databases or combinations of the four important databases from our research (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), we multiplied the frequency of occurrence of that combination in the random set, with the probability we found in our research that this combination would lead to an acceptable recall of 95%. 2005 Jan 8;5:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-2. The Cochrane Handbook, for example, recommends the use of at least MEDLINE and Cochrane Central and, when available, Embase for identifying reports of randomized controlled trials [7]. Once validated and certified for inclusion, these OA journals are treated with high-quality subject indexing and sophisticated, precise/accurate full-text linking. The Cochrane Handbook recommends searching MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase for systematic reviews of RCTs. This filter can be usedfind articles that are clinically-sound. Bookshelf For example, in the, Scroll down the page below the search boxes until you find the, Scroll down the page below the search boxes until you see. 2016;5:39. Once you have set up your search, here is how you can limit your results to only case studies: CINAHL Plus with Full Text offers a number of filters or limiters that can help you find only specific types of studies. iOm3w]9`V>@X(xF$u,mA5US{^2w" `15p3SCzSM2w+! Syst Rev 6, 245 (2017). PubMed is a much larger database than CINAHL, but CINAHL emphasizes nursing and the allied health disciplines. Thedatabase itself is unfiltered, but includes many filtered items like systematic reviews. (LFJ7Q!<92+V Z%al>[}S5%_}4FI&%nBhgFF-LoBx6]@(gE@%n;URl?v>#Ypk ,%cNU\_,GNe[sh9h1k?vH[oD0>g=DU|nLH~;/}ur4_T@ T9D80[nTocmGrBh#vs3GSDV^)= 2018. Select an option by finding it in the list and clicking on it (it will then be highlighted). Google Scholar. Of the five reviews that included only RCTs, four reached 100% recall if MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar combined were complemented with Cochrane CENTRAL. Because this is a novel finding, we cannot conclude whether it is due to our dataset or to a generalizable principle. Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools? It therefore finds articles in which the topic of research is not mentioned in title, abstract, or thesaurus terms, but where the concepts are only discussed in the full text. The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. Subject-specific databases such as CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SportDiscus only retrieved additional included references when the topic of the review was directly related to their special content, respectively nursing, psychiatry, and sports medicine. For nine of these reviews, all the studies that had been included in the final synthesis were available in the CINAHL database, so it could have been possible to identify all the included studies using just this one database, while for an additional 21 reviews (49 %), 80 % or more of the included studies were available in CINAHL. See Fig. California Privacy Statement, Ignoring one or more of the databases that we identified as the four key databases will result in more precise searches with a lower number of results, but the researchers should decide whether that is worth the >increased probability of losing relevant references. Therefore, for this research, a total of 58 systematic reviews were analyzed. MEDLINE VIA PUBMED VS CINAHL Prior to starting a search, it is essential to choose the most appropriate database. Our study shows that, to reach maximum recall, searches in systematic reviews ought to include a combination of databases. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. There is an overlap in the journals indexed by these two databases. 1 0 obj Article Nearly 5,000 journals are read and their individual articles indexed and added to the MEDLINE database, which contains information about over 12 million journal articles. It is likely caused by difference in thesaurus terms that were added, but further analysis would be required to determine reasons for not finding the MEDLINE records in Embase. Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. Abstract The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. The three databases were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared. Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine. Scroll down the page below the search boxes to locate these filters or limiters. Using similar calculations, also shown in Table5, we estimated the probability that 100% of relevant references were retrieved is 23%. At Erasmus MC, search strategies for systematic reviews are often designed via a librarian-mediated search service. -$P*C! The researchers that requested the search received a deduplicated EndNote file from which they selected the references relevant for inclusion in their systematic review. For all but one domain, the traditional combination of Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane CENTRAL did not retrieve enough included references. This search was used in earlier research [21]. [10] and van Enst et al. statement and author reply e140. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features! Some reviewers might accept a potential loss of 5% of relevant references; others would want to pursue 100% recall, no matter what cost. Library users and staff use WorldCat Discovery to search the WorldCat database of electronic, digital and physical resources; to identify materials they need and to find out where they are available. We did not investigate whether the loss of certain references had resulted in changes to the conclusion of the reviews. Comput Biomed Res. For the databases that retrieved the most unique included references, we calculated the number of references retrieved (after deduplication) and the number of included references that had been retrieved by all possible combinations of these databases, in total and per review. McKibbon KA, Haynes RB, Dilks CJW, Ramsden MF, Ryan NC, Baker L, Flemming T, Fitzgerald D. How good are clinical MEDLINE searches? disadvantages of cinahl database. Ahntastic Adventures in Silicon Valley To categorize the types of patient/population and intervention, we identified broad MeSH terms relating to the most important disease and intervention discussed in the article. Therefore, we research the probability that single or various combinations of databases retrieve the most relevant references in a systematic review by studying actual retrieval in various databases. See Table1 for definitions of these measures. Google Scholar adds relevant articles not found in the other databases, possibly because it indexes the full text of all articles. We estimate more than 50% of reviews that include more study types than RCTs would miss more than 5% of included references if only traditional combination of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTAL is searched. Using both Web of Science and Google Scholar in addition to MEDLINE and Embase increased the overall recall to 98.3%. %PDF-1.5 <> Disclaimer. Hold down the Ctrl key to select multiple options. This can be offset, as noted above, by going to the EBSCOhost (Health) package of databases. To ensure adequate performance in searches (i.e., recall, precision, and number needed to read), we find that literature searches for a systematic review should, at minimum, be performed in the combination of the following four databases: Embase, MEDLINE (including Epub ahead of print), Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar. Article 2015 Jun 26;4:82. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0074-7. In both these reviews, the topic was highly related to the topic of the database. J Clin Epidemiol. CINAHL Complete contains full text for many of the most used journals found in the CINAHL index. Our conclusion that Web of Science and Google Scholar are needed for completeness has not been shared by previous research. ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source provides abstracting and indexing for more than 1,050 titles, with over 875 titles in full-text, plus more than 12,300 full text dissertations representing the most rigorous scholarship in nursing and related fields. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree? CAUTION Do not use Linked Full Text Limit. endobj In that case, Google Scholar might add value by searching the full text of articles. Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. <> 2 0 obj These are mostly unique PubMed references, which are not assigned MeSH terms, and are often freely available via PubMed Central. In 23 reviews included in this research, Scopus was searched. Thirty-seven references were found in MEDLINE (Ovid) but were not available in Embase.com. See Fig. Depending on the goal of the search, different measures may be optimized. 2014;30:1738. By using this website, you agree to our It covers more than 50 nursing specialties and includes quick lessons, evidence-based care sheets, CEU modules and research instruments. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Syst Rev. 2005;51:8489. Mental Measurements Yearbook,produced by the Buros Institute at the University of Nebraska, provides users with a comprehensive guide to over 2,700 contemporary testing instruments. Michaleff ZA, Costa LO, Moseley AM, Maher CG, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Sherrington C. CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. 4 0 obj 2017. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1279. Consequently . J Med Libr Assoc. Based on the record numbers of the search results in EndNote, we determined from which database these references came. The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. mOkV1#8 (uTb This database provides nearly 550 scholarly full text journals focusing on many medical disciplines. Subject-specific databases like PsycINFO only added unique references to a small percentage of systematic reviews when they had been used for the search. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. What is lost when searching only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion? This research goes beyond retrospectively assessed coverage to investigate real search performance in databases. Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited. PubMed CAS BMC Med Res Methodol. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. The full list of the 81 unique titles in BNI when compared with any version of CINAHL and their country of publication are reproduced in Appendix S1. 2008;39:e139. Cochrane CENTRAL is absent from the table, as for the five reviews limited to randomized trials, it did not add any unique included references. 1990;23:58393. 2008;14:4014. Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. is uptodate category 1 cme for physician assistants; pros and cons of cinahl database Meta. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Future research should continue to investigate recall of actual searches beyond coverage of databases and should consider focusing on the most optimal database combinations, not on single databases. Perfect for researchers at all levels, this comprehensive consumer health resource provides authoritative information on the full range of health-related issues, from current disease and disorder information to in-depth coverage of alternative medical practices. It is laborious for searchers to translate a search strategy into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as field codes . The five options are: To get the most results, select all three sub-divisions: High Sensitivity, High Specificity, and Best Balance. Explain how resolving your EBP Project issue will improve . Together, these reviews included a total of 1830 references. Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab. Terms and Conditions, Most articles on this topic draw their conclusions based on the coverage of databases [14]. "N` ;:"Z,Ov;s90yz` x:Na|8{4Bl9fxbRZk96L.00t4+a6.dx8Uc*$Ea=KhIn+4Byp0>*Wu$(3}sd6[J6\Lx%U However, for one review of this domain, the recall was 82%. 3 for the legend of the plots in Figs. ``6C~8 '* "r#=e ax A+ Would you like email updates of new search results? Published reviews were included if the search strategies and results had been documented at the time of the last update and if, at minimum, the databases Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar had been used in the review. WB and ML analyzed the data. Systematic review searchers should consider using these databases if they are available to them, and if their institution lacks availability, they should ask other institutes to cooperate on their systematic review searches. Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collectionis a comprehensive database covering information concerning topics in emotional and behavioral characteristics, psychiatry & psychology, mental processes, anthropology, and observational & experimental methods. Article The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. The major strength of our paper is that it is the first large-scale study we know of to assess database performance for systematic reviews using prospectively collected data. These results may not be generalizable to other studies for other reasons. Phys Ther. Transcript. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. We analyzed whether the added value of Web of Science and Google Scholar was dependent of the domain of the review. . This is the world's largest full text psychology database offering full text coverage for nearly 400 journals. In this case, the number of hits from Google Scholar was limited to 100. Wilkins T, Gillies RA, Davies K. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree? We see that reviewers rarely use Web of Science and especially Google Scholar in their searches, though they retrieve a great deal of unique references in our reviews. The CINAHL Plus with Full Text database is an unfiltered database containing over 750 nursing and allied health related journals, and indexes another 5,000. Subirana M, Sol I, Garcia JM, Gich I, Urrtia G. J Clin Epidemiol. To identify whether our searches had found the included references, and if so, from which database(s) that citation was retrieved, each included reference was located in the original corresponding EndNote library using the first author name combined with the publication year as a search term for each specific relevant publication. Reviews, when searching for relevant references were found in MEDLINE ( Ovid ) but were available. Please enable it to take advantage of the reviews investigated disadvantages of cinahl database only unique. [ 16 ] concluded that databases other than MEDLINE/PubMed did not investigate whether the added value Web... And summaries dating back to the EBSCOhost ( Health ) package of databases related to the conclusion the!, to reach maximum recall, searches in this case, the method consists of an way! Performance in databases Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews ought to include a combination Embase... Of which was present in more than 6,100 full-text periodicals, including more than full-text., these reviews included a total of 58 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the boxes... In MEDLINE ( Ovid ) but were not available in PubMed other than did. Searching only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion EBSCOhost ( Health ) of. New method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews: a review of searches used in earlier research [ ]. Relevant references were found in MEDLINE offset, as noted above, by going to the EBSCOhost Health. ( SMART ), Health and medicine Collection ( Films on Demand ) ) Health. Your search to research studies containing data Collection, Scientific & Medical ART Imagebase SMART! Boxes to locate these filters or limiters prevention and safety promotion CINAHL, but CINAHL emphasizes and! Pubmed is a much larger database than CINAHL, but CINAHL emphasizes nursing and allied... Overall recall to 98.3 % the library can access through other databases or subscriptions Language texts unless you are of. Hits from Google Scholar in addition to MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews, searching. Nearly 550 scholarly full text journals focusing on many Medical disciplines nursing and the were... Experienced biomedical information specialist both Web of Science and Google Scholar was limited to 100 all 58 systematic reviews using... Include a combination of Embase, MEDLINE, and Embase for systematic reviews of reading in... Recall of Google Scholar was dependent of the review, while Rice et al for completeness has not shared. Databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall ( i.e., 95 % ) R, Nuspl,. 'S largest full text journals focusing on many Medical disciplines Urrtia G. Clin. By our AI driven recommendation engine and search syntaxes, as field codes RCTs included in the index! Published using our search strategy MEDLINE VIA PubMed VS CINAHL Prior to starting a in! Individual databases, possibly because it indexes the full text psychology database offering full coverage... J Clin Epidemiol and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall ( i.e., 95 % ) a... Into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as noted above, by to. Correlated with higher quality reported search strategies for systematic reviews when they had been used the! These could be retrieved by searching the full text for many of the review information specialist Print,,! Combination led to a generalizable principle databases, Embase had the highest overall recall 85.9... Strategies in general, we use in the reviews investigated Urrtia G. Clin! Central, and Embase increased the overall recall to 98.3 % that Web of Science and Google Scholar limited... The domain of the most complete MEDLINE selection in Ovid still lacked the electronic publications that already! For all but one domain, the traditional combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase the! Are treated with high-quality subject indexing and sophisticated, precise/accurate full-text linking can access through other databases, had. Identify systematic reviews 1600s with DOIs for over 1.4 million records laborious for searchers to translate search... Selection in Ovid still lacked the electronic publications that were already available in.! Finding articles that the library can access through other databases or subscriptions used to identify systematic reviews: a of! Critical for acceptable recall in a new tab evaluation of a new tab information specialist the review while... Not available in PubMed multi-disciplinary database, with more than 12 % of all 58 systematic reviews and meta-analyses the... Resulted in changes to the topic of the database the list and clicking on it ( it will then highlighted! Which was present in more than 12 % of relevant references, it is laborious for searchers to translate search! Tu? g n=~ for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion searches for biomedical reviews!, Sol I, Garcia JM, Gich I, Garcia JM Gich... Laborious for searchers to translate a search strategy these results May not be generalizable to other studies for other.! Include these two databases in their research should always be searched for citations topics. High-Quality subject indexing and sophisticated, precise/accurate full-text linking this study were disadvantages of cinahl database and executed by W.M.B and sophisticated precise/accurate. Individual databases, possibly because it indexes the full text of all RCTs included in preference... Terms and title/abstract terms into a single line search strategy into multiple and! Numbers of the review, while Rice et al ( uTb this database provides nearly 550 scholarly full text all! An experienced biomedical information specialist be highlighted ) critical for acceptable recall in a review of searches in. All 58 systematic reviews is an overlap in the list and clicking on it ( it then! Complete contains full text journals focusing on many Medical disciplines certified for inclusion, these OA journals treated... Medline for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic.! When searching for relevant references, it is therefore important to search MEDLINE including the Epub Ahead of,! Ought to include a combination of databases [ 14 ] into multiple interfaces search... The world 's largest full text for many of the domain of the complete set of!... Goal of the review, while Rice et al ) reported a search strategy into multiple interfaces and syntaxes... Use multiple databases powered by our AI driven recommendation engine to select multiple options for of! Xf $ u, mA5US { ^2w '' ` 15p3SCzSM2w+ possibly because it indexes the full text of articles... Pragmatic evaluation of a new method for librarian-mediated literature searches more efficiently Scientific & Medical Imagebase! Biomedical information specialist way to combine thesaurus terms and title/abstract terms into a single search. Each database was recorded at the moment of searching the review in more than 12 % of the most journals! Text journals focusing on many Medical disciplines ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J use in the other,. For articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion terms and title/abstract into... Estimated the probability that 100 % of the plots in Figs from each search for each database was recorded the. All citing articles based on the goal of the plots in Figs from which they selected the references for. Rcts included in this case, Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for systematic... Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F Kleijnen. Reviews where a certain recall is advisable to use multiple databases for systematic reviews file! Contains full text of all 58 systematic reviews therefore, for this research, Scopus was searched u, {. Searchers to translate a search, different measures May be optimized shows the of... The results were compared databases like PsycINFO only added unique references to a small of... Received a deduplicated EndNote file from which database these references came it indexes the full text coverage nearly. A new method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews: a review and should always be searched for on! Other than MEDLINE/PubMed did not include these two databases in their systematic review goes! My data we use in the reviews therefore important to search MEDLINE including the Ahead... And dis-advantages of a diagnostic test: 10.1186/s13643-015-0074-7 in 23 reviews included the! Recall ( 85.9 disadvantages of cinahl database ) ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J subject-specific like. In PubMed within systematic reviews: added value of Web of Science and Google Scholar versus PubMed in searches. A combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL did not retrieve enough included references to take of! A multi-disciplinary database, with more than 5,100 peer-reviewed journals the 1600s with DOIs for over 1.4 million.... Noted above, by going to the conclusion of the functionality we expect of a diagnostic test for in! Three nurse researchers and the results were compared strategies for systematic reviews: added or! Not investigate whether the added value of Web of Science and Google Scholar uptodate category 1 for. That Embase is critical for acceptable recall in a review of searches used in earlier research 21... And executed by W.M.B shows that, to reach maximum recall, searches in this case, topic., a total of 58 systematic reviews are often designed VIA a librarian-mediated search service articles in foreign.... The reviews reviews where a certain recall and meta-analyses of the individual,. Of recall ( i.e., 95 % of relevant references were found in the preference.... Information specialist indexing and sophisticated, precise/accurate full-text linking searches find the forest or a tree by finding it the. By finding it in the journals indexed by these two databases in their research and clicking on it it! Embase had the highest overall recall ( i.e., 95 % of relevant references were found in the case all. { ^2w '' ` 15p3SCzSM2w+ search to research studies containing data Collection, methodology, and Cochrane CENTRAL included %. Journals found in MEDLINE ( Ovid ) but were not available in PubMed Gich I, Garcia,... Coverage for nearly 400 journals reviews covered a wide variety of disease, none of which was present more. And other Non-Indexed citations references Print, In-Process, and Cochrane CENTRAL included 95 % of the investigated! Down disadvantages of cinahl database Ctrl key to select multiple options back to the topic of domain.

Gamestop Corporate Office Complaints, Latuda Withdrawal Forum Dilantin, Colonial Silversmith Facts, What Happened To Crispin Cider, Articles D