Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 58, Issue 1 , Pages 20-25 , January 2005

A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification

  • Mireia Subirana

      Affiliations

    • Epidemiology and Public Health Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Sant Antoni Maria Claret 171, 08041 Barcelona, Spain
    • Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +34-93-2919526; fax: +34-93-2919525.
    • ,
  • Ivan Solá

      Affiliations

    • Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
    • ,
  • Josep M. Garcia

      Affiliations

    • Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
    • ,
  • Ignasi Gich

      Affiliations

    • Epidemiology and Public Health Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Sant Antoni Maria Claret 171, 08041 Barcelona, Spain
    • ,
  • Gerard Urrútia

      Affiliations

    • Epidemiology and Public Health Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Sant Antoni Maria Claret 171, 08041 Barcelona, Spain
    • Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain

,Accepted 2 June 2004.

References 

  1. Needleman IG. A guide to systematic reviews. J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29(Suppl 3):6–9
  2. Magarey JM. Elements of a systematic review. Int J Nurs Pract. 2001;7:376–382
  3. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA. 1998;280:278–280
  4. Deville WL, Bezemer PD, Bouter LM. Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:65–69
  5. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ. 2001;322:98–101
  6. Glanville J, Haines M, Auston I. Getting research finding into practice: finding information on clinical effectiveness. BMJ. 1998;317:200–203
  7. Brenner SH. CINAHL and MEDLINE: a comparison of indexing practices. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1989;77:366–371
  8. Burnham J, Shearer B. Comparison of CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for the nurse researcher. Med Ref Serv Q. 1993;12(3):45–57
  9. Brazier H, Begley CM. Selecting a database for literature searches in nursing: MEDLINE or CINAHL?. J Adv Nurs. 1996;24:868–875
  10. Watson MM, Perrin R. A comparison of CINAHL and MEDLINE CD-ROM in four allied health areas. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1994;82:214–216
  11. Okuma E. Selecting CD-ROM databases for nursing students: a comparison of MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1994;82:25–29
  12. Coma I, de Dios R, Montcusí C. Fuentes de información para enfermería: comparación entre las bases de datos CINAHL y MEDLINE. Metas. 1999;14:21–27
  13. In:  Khan SK,  ter Riet G,  Glanville J,  Sowden AJ,  Kleijnen J editor. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD Report no. 4. 2nd ed.. York, UK: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York; 2001;[Available at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4. htm.]
  14. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46
  15. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174
  16. Conn VS, Valentine JC, Cooper HM, Rantz MJ. Grey literature in meta-analyses. Nurs Res. 2003;52:256–261
  17. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998;316:61–66
  18. Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1994;272:158–162

PII: S0895-4356(04)00167-2

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.001

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 58, Issue 1 , Pages 20-25 , January 2005

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution