Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 62, Issue 12 , Pages 1261-1267, December 2009

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses

  • Gerard P. Slobogean

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, 3114—910 W, 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia V5Z4E3, Canada. Tel.: +604-875-4646; fax: +604-875-4677.
  • ,
  • Ashim Verma

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • ,
  • Dean Giustini

      Affiliations

    • Biomedical Branch Library, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • ,
  • Bronwyn L. Slobogean

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • ,
  • Kishore Mulpuri

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Accepted 28 January 2009. published online 13 April 2009.

Abstract 

Objective

To test the hypothesis that all primary studies used in orthopedic meta-analyses are indexed in MEDLINE or EMBASE.

Study Design and Setting

Using MEDLINE from 1995 to 2005, we retrieved all published meta-analyses of orthopedic surgical interventions. The primary studies in each meta-analysis were defined as the “gold standard” set. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for each primary study, and a recall rate was calculated. Secondary searches were performed using Web of Science (WoS), the Cochrane databases, and CINAHL.

Results

High recall rates were achieved searching MEDLINE (90%) and EMBASE (81%) for the gold standard set, and the combined search retrieved 91%. Titles not indexed by MEDLINE or EMBASE included 45 abstracts, eight journal articles, and three unpublished studies. Searching the Cochrane databases yielded 36 titles not in MEDLINE or EMBASE. Using all three databases produced 97% recall of the primary studies; WoS and CINAHL did not increase the recall rate.

Conclusions

These results suggest that a very high percentage of primary research in orthopedics can be found using the major databases. Additional database searches are unlikely to increase the yield of published manuscripts; however, conference proceedings and journal supplements should still be searched to ensure that relevant remaining reports are identified.

Keywords: Bibliographic databases, Systematic review, Meta-analysis, Literature searching, Orthopedic surgery, Information retrieval

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0895-4356(09)00049-3

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.013

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 62, Issue 12 , Pages 1261-1267, December 2009