Related Experiment Videos
Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology
Matt Vassar1, Vadim Yerokhin1, Philip Marcus Sinnett1
1Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Health Information and Libraries Journal
|April 7, 2017
Summary
Systematic reviewers in neurology often use too few databases, potentially biasing results. Including information specialists can improve the comprehensiveness and validity of systematic reviews.
Area of Science:
- Medical research methodology
- Evidence-based medicine
- Neurology systematic reviews
Background:
- Comprehensive literature searches are crucial for systematic reviews (SRs) to ensure validity.
- Inadequate searches can introduce bias and compromise review conclusions.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the frequency and selection of databases used in clinical neurology systematic reviews.
- To identify potential gaps in search strategies within neurology SRs.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 95 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in prominent neurology journals (2008-2014).
- Review of methods sections to identify and code all bibliographic databases utilized.
- Examination of the role of information specialists in search design.
Main Results:
- An average of 2.59 databases were used per SR search.
- PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE were the most frequently cited databases.
- Reviews involving information specialists reported using more information sources.
Conclusions:
- Most clinical neurology systematic reviews do not search an adequate number of databases, risking biased study selection.
- Insufficient database searching may impact the accuracy and generalizability of SR findings.
- Incorporating information specialists and conducting comprehensive searches are recommended to enhance SR quality and minimize bias.