A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension

BACKGROUND: Bibliographic databases are the primary resource for identifying systematic reviews of health care interventions. Reliable retrieval of systematic reviews depends on the scope of indexing used by database providers. Therefore, searching one database may be insufficient, but it is unclear how many need to be searched. We sought to evaluate the performance of seven major bibliographic databases for the identification of systematic reviews for hypertension. METHODS: We searched seven databases (Cochrane library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Epistemonikos, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed Health and Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP)) from 2003 to 2015 for systematic reviews of any intervention for hypertension. Citations retrieved were screened for relevance, coded and checked for screening consistency using a fuzzy text matching query. The performance of each database was assessed by calculating its sensitivity, precision, the number of missed reviews and the number of unique records retrieved. RESULTS: Four hundred systematic reviews were identified for inclusion from 11,381 citations retrieved from seven databases. No single database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews for hypertension. EMBASE identified the most reviews (sensitivity 69 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with 7.2 % precision (Pr). The sensitivity of the Cochrane library was 60 %, DARE 57 %, MEDLINE 57 %, PubMed Health 53 %, Epistemonikos 49 % and TRIP 33 %. EMBASE contained the highest number of unique records (n = 43). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records and had the highest precision (Pr = 30 %), followed by Epistemonikos (n = 2, Pr = 19 %). No unique records were found in PubMed Health (Pr = 24 %) DARE (Pr = 21 %), TRIP (Pr = 10 %) or MEDLINE (Pr = 10 %). Searching EMBASE and the Cochrane library identified 88 % of all systematic reviews in the reference set, and searching the freely available databases (Cochrane, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE) identified 83 % of all the reviews. The databases were re-analysed after systematic reviews of non-conventional interventions (e.g. yoga, acupuncture) were removed. Similarly, no database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews. EMBASE identified the most relevant systematic reviews (sensitivity 73 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with Pr = 5 %. The sensitivity of the Cochrane database was 62 %, followed by MEDLINE (60 %), DARE (55 %), PubMed Health (54 %), Epistemonikos (50 %) and TRIP (31 %). The precision of the Cochrane library was the highest (20 %), followed by PubMed Health (Pr = 16 %), DARE (Pr = 13 %), Epistemonikos (Pr = 12 %), MEDLINE (Pr = 6 %), TRIP (Pr = 6 %) and EMBASE (Pr = 5 %). EMBASE contained the most unique records (n = 34). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records. The other databases held no unique records. CONCLUSIONS: The coverage of bibliographic databases varies considerably due to differences in their scope and content. Researchers wishing to identify systematic reviews should not rely on one database but search multiple databases

Searching a biomedical bibliographic database from the Ukraine: the Panteleimon database

The Panteleimon database is available via the Internet and is a public access, database, capable of being searched in English, Russian and Ukrainian, covering medical, pharmaceutical, and chemical publications, published in he Ukraine and Russia from 1998. Describes the formulation of a search strategy for the Panteleimon database, for the identification of citations to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the comparison of the search results with records included in the Cochrane Library's Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database, to evaluate how comprehensive the coverage of the CENTRAL database is for the literature of the Ukraine. The results indicated that Panteleimon is an easily accessible bibliographic database offering easy access to the Ukrainian biomedical literature. The English language retrieval functions picked up most of the reports of RCTs/CCTs (91 per cent precision but the lower recall of 55 per cent indicates the need to search using Russian and Ukrainian terms for completeness. The overall precision of 26 per cent compares favourably with a search for RCTs in EMBASE, carried out by the UK Cochrane Centre, where 70,000 reports of RCTs were identified from 300,000 records down-loaded (precision 23 per cent). (Quotes from original text

Choosing and using methodological search filters : searchers' views

© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Group.Peer reviewedPostprin

Aspirin for prophylactic use in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer : a systematic review and overview of reviews

Background: Prophylactic aspirin has been considered to be beneficial in reducing the risks of heart disease and cancer. However, potential benefits must be balanced against the possible harm from side effects, such as bleeding and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. It is particularly important to know the risk of side effects when aspirin is used as primary prevention - that is when used by people as yet free of, but at risk of developing, cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cancer. In this report we aim to identify and re-analyse randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses to summarise the current scientific evidence with a focus on possible harms of prophylactic aspirin in primary prevention of CVD and cancer. Objectives: To identify RCTs, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs of the prophylactic use of aspirin in primary prevention of CVD or cancer. To undertake a quality assessment of identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses using meta-analysis to investigate study-level effects on estimates of benefits and risks of adverse events; cumulative meta-analysis; exploratory multivariable meta-regression; and to quantify relative and absolute risks and benefits. Methods: We identified RCTs, meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and searched electronic bibliographic databases (from 2008 September 2012) including MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and Science Citation Index. We limited searches to publications since 2008, based on timing of the most recent comprehensive systematic reviews. Results: In total, 2572 potentially relevant papers were identified and 27 met the inclusion criteria. Benefits of aspirin ranged from 6% reduction in relative risk (RR) for all-cause mortality [RR 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.00] and 10% reduction in major cardiovascular events (MCEs) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96) to a reduction in total coronary heart disease (CHD) of 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06). Reported pooled odds ratios (ORs) for total cancer mortality ranged between 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.88) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.03). Inclusion of the Women's Health Study changed the estimated OR to 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97). Aspirin reduced reported colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.02). However, including studies in which aspirin was given every other day raised the OR to 0.91 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.11). Reported cancer benefits appeared approximately 5 years from start of treatment. Calculation of absolute effects per 100,000 patient-years of follow-up showed reductions ranging from 33 to 46 deaths (all-cause mortality), 60-84 MCEs and 47-64 incidents of CHD and a possible avoidance of 34 deaths from CRC. Reported increased RRs of adverse events from aspirin use were 37% for GI bleeding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62), between 54% (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.82) and 62% (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.00) for major bleeds, and between 32% (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and 38% (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.82) for haemorrhagic stroke. Pooled estimates of increased RR for bleeding remained stable across trials conducted over several decades. Estimates of absolute rates of harm from aspirin use, per 100,000 patient-years of follow-up, were 99-178 for non-trivial bleeds, 46-49 for major bleeds, 68-117 for GI bleeds and 8-10 for haemorrhagic stroke. Meta-analyses aimed at judging risk of bleed according to sex and in individuals with diabetes were insufficiently powered for firm conclusions to be drawn. Limitations: Searches were date limited to 2008 because of the intense interest that this subject has generated and the cataloguing of all primary research in so many previous systematic reviews. A further limitation was our potential over-reliance on study-level systematic reviews in which the person-years of follow-up were not accurately ascertainable. However, estimates of number of events averted or incurred through aspirin use calculated from data in study-level meta-analyses did not differ substantially from estimates based on individual patient data-level meta-analyses, for which person-years of follow-up were more accurate (although based on less-than-complete assemblies of currently available primary studies). Conclusions: We have found that there is a fine balance between benefits and risks from regular aspirin use in primary prevention of CVD. Effects on cancer prevention have a long lead time and are at present reliant on post hoc analyses. All absolute effects are relatively small compared with the burden of these diseases. Several potentially relevant ongoing trials will be completed between 2013 and 2019, which may clarify the extent of benefit of aspirin in reducing cancer incidence and mortality. Future research considerations include expanding the use of IPD meta-analysis of RCTs by pooling data from available studies and investigating the impact of different dose regimens on cardiovascular and cancer outcomes

Interactive computer-based interventions for sexual health promotion (Protocol)

No description supplie

Couple and family therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The objectives of this review will be to: assess the efficacy of couple and family therapies for adult PTSD, relative to 'no treatment' conditions, 'standard care', and structured or non‐specific individual psychological therapies; examine the clinical characteristics of studies that influence the relative efficacy of these therapies; and critically evaluate methodological features of studies that bias research findings

Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data. RESULTS: Of the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90%) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47%) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95% confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98%) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60%) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35%) or four (21%) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79%), Cochrane library (76%), and EMBASE (64%). CONCLUSIONS: Being able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47% of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60% stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed

Dissemination of evidence-based standards of care.

Standards of care pertain to crafting and implementing patient-centered treatment interventions. Standards of care must take into consideration the patient's gender, ethnicity, medical and dental history, insurance coverage (or socioeconomic level, if a private patient), and the timeliness of the targeted scientific evidence. This resolves into a process by which clinical decision-making about the optimal patient-centered treatment relies on the best available research evidence, and all other necessary inputs and factors to provide the best possible treatment. Standards of care must be evidence-based, and not merely based on the evidence - the dichotomy being critical in contemporary health services research and practice. Evidence-based standards of care must rest on the best available evidence that emerges from a concerted hypothesis-driven process of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Health information technology needs to become an every-day reality in health services research and practice to ensure evidence-based standards of care. Current trends indicate that user-friendly methodologies, for the dissemination of evidence-based standards of care, must be developed, tested and distributed. They should include approaches for the quantification and analysis of the textual content of systematic reviews and of their summaries in the form of critical reviews and lay-language summaries