Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study.
Database coverage
Literature search
Rapid review
Recall
Search strategy
Systematic review
Journal
Journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN: 1878-5921
Titre abrégé: J Clin Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801383
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2022
09 2022
Historique:
received:
18
02
2022
revised:
04
05
2022
accepted:
25
05
2022
pubmed:
3
6
2022
medline:
16
11
2022
entrez:
2
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Assessing changes in coverage, recall, review, conclusions and references not found when searching fewer databases. In randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews, we checked included study publications' coverage (indexation) and recall (findability) using different search approaches with MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and related them to authors' conclusions and certainty. We assessed characteristics of unfound references. Overall 1989/2080 included references, were indexed in ≥1 database (coverage = 96%). In reviews where using one of our search approaches would not change conclusions and certainty (n = 44-54), median coverage and recall were highest (range 87.9%-100.0% and 78.2%-93.3%, respectively). Here, searching ≥2 databases reached >95% coverage and ≥87.9% recall. In reviews with unchanged conclusions but less certainty (n = 2-8): 63.3%-79.3% coverage and 45.0%-75.0% recall. In reviews with opposite conclusions (n = 1-3): 63.3%-96.6% and 52.1%-78.7%. In reviews where a conclusion was no longer possible (n = 3-7): 60.6%-86.0% and 20.0%-53.8%. The 265 references that were indexed but unfound were more often abstractless (30% vs. 11%) and older (28% vs. 17% published before 1991) than found references. Searching ≥2 databases improves coverage and recall and decreases the risk of missing eligible studies. If researchers suspect that relevant articles are difficult to find, supplementary search methods should be used.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Assessing changes in coverage, recall, review, conclusions and references not found when searching fewer databases.
METHODS
In randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews, we checked included study publications' coverage (indexation) and recall (findability) using different search approaches with MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and related them to authors' conclusions and certainty. We assessed characteristics of unfound references.
RESULTS
Overall 1989/2080 included references, were indexed in ≥1 database (coverage = 96%). In reviews where using one of our search approaches would not change conclusions and certainty (n = 44-54), median coverage and recall were highest (range 87.9%-100.0% and 78.2%-93.3%, respectively). Here, searching ≥2 databases reached >95% coverage and ≥87.9% recall. In reviews with unchanged conclusions but less certainty (n = 2-8): 63.3%-79.3% coverage and 45.0%-75.0% recall. In reviews with opposite conclusions (n = 1-3): 63.3%-96.6% and 52.1%-78.7%. In reviews where a conclusion was no longer possible (n = 3-7): 60.6%-86.0% and 20.0%-53.8%. The 265 references that were indexed but unfound were more often abstractless (30% vs. 11%) and older (28% vs. 17% published before 1991) than found references.
CONCLUSION
Searching ≥2 databases improves coverage and recall and decreases the risk of missing eligible studies. If researchers suspect that relevant articles are difficult to find, supplementary search methods should be used.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35654269
pii: S0895-4356(22)00144-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.022
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
154-164Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.