Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns?

C Stevinson, DA Lawlor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

66 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To explore whether searching specialised bibliographic databases identified additional relevant papers to those located by a Medline search for a systematic review of exercise therapy. Method: Searches were performed in Medline, two further generalised medical databases (Embase, Cochrane Library) and four specialised databases (CancerLit, Cinahl, PsychInfo, SportDiscus) to identify controlled trials of exercise interventions for cancer patients. Results: A total of 749 different publications were located through the search, of which 18 met inclusion criteria. Fifteen (83%) of these were identified through Medline and three (17%) from three individual specialised databases. A further seven studies meeting inclusion criteria were located through reference lists and contact with experts. Conclusion: In this example, searching Medline and additional specialised databases along with checking reference lists and contacting experts was the most effective means of ensuring that all relevant papers were included in the review. Searching Medline alone for systematic reviews of exercise or other unconventional therapies is likely to be inadequate.
Translated title of the contributionSearching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns?
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)228 - 232
Number of pages4
JournalComplementary Therapies in Medicine
Volume12(4)
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2004

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this