Related Experiment Videos
"No language restrictions" in database searches: what does this really mean?
Karen Pilkington1, Anelia Boshnakova, Mike Clarke
1Research Council for Complementary Medicine, London, UK. k.pilkington@westminster.ac.uk
Summary
Biomedical databases like MEDLINE and EMBASE exhibit coverage bias, systematically excluding non-English journals. Relying solely on English databases risks missing crucial research, impacting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Area of Science:
- Bibliometrics
- Information Science
- Biomedical Informatics
Background:
- Major biomedical databases are crucial for evidence synthesis.
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses depend on comprehensive literature searches.
- Potential biases in database coverage can affect research findings.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the journal coverage of MEDLINE and EMBASE for non-English publications.
- To identify potential database coverage bias in major biomedical indexing services.
- To assess the impact of language bias on literature retrieval for systematic reviews.
Main Methods:
- Conducted comparative searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE for non-English journals.
- Utilized Ulrich's Periodicals Directory as a reference for journal listings.
- Analyzed search results to identify systematic exclusion patterns.
Main Results:
- MEDLINE and EMBASE demonstrate significant coverage bias against non-English journals.
- Certain countries and languages are systematically underrepresented in these databases.
- Exclusion of non-English journals can lead to incomplete literature identification.
Conclusions:
- Database coverage bias exists in major biomedical databases.
- Reliance on English-language databases may lead to the omission of relevant studies.
- Researchers should be aware of language and country biases in database coverage for comprehensive literature searches.