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.

References 

  1. Felson DT. Bias in meta-analytic research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:885–892
  2. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies. Br Med J. 1998;316:61–66
  3. Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. London: John Wiley; 2000;
  4. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [updated February 2008]. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/index.htm Accessed September 1, 2008.
  5. Shohania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224–233
  6. McKibbon KA, Fridsma DB. Effectiveness of clinician-selected electronic information resources for answering primary care physicians' information needs. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:653–659Epub August 2006
  7. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Walter SD, Werre SR Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from MEDLINE: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005;330:1179
  8. McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals?. BMC Med. 2004;2:33
  9. McKibbon KA, Gadd CS. A quantitative analysis of qualitative studies in clinical journals for the 2000 publishing year. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2004;4:11
  10. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:167–171
  11. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF QUOROM Group. . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–1900
  12. Olkin I. Statistical and theoretical considerations in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:133–146
  13. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet. 2000;56:1228–1231
  14. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Lusher A, Lefebvre C, Westby M. A comparison of handsearching versus MEDLINE searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials. Stat Med. 2002;21:1625–1634
  15. Whiting P, Westwood M, Burke M, Sterne J, Glanville J. Systematic reviews of test accuracy should search a range of databases to identify primary studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:357–364
  16. Wilczynski NL, Garg AX, Haynes B Nephrology Hedges Team. A method for defining a journal subset for a clinical discipline using the bibliographies of systematic reviews. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129:721–724
  17. Sampson M, McGowan J, Lefebvre C, Moher D, Grimshaw J. PRESS: peer review of electronic search strategies. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2008;
  18. Sampson M, Barrowman NJ, Moher D, Klassen TP, Pham B, Platt R, et al. Should meta-analysts search EMBASE in addition to MEDLINE?. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:943–955
  19. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Rems C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:476–487
  20. Langham J, Thompson E, Rowan K. Identification of randomized controlled trials from the emergency medicine literature: comparison of hand searching versus MEDLINE searching. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;34:25–34
  21. Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB Hedges Team. An overview of the design and methods for retrieving high-quality studies for clinical care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005;5:20
  22. Adams CE, Power A, Frederick K, Lefebvre C. An investigation of the adequacy of MEDLINE searches for RCTs of the effects of mental health care. Psychol Med. 1994;24:741–748
  23. Rovers JP, Janosik JE, Souney PF. Crossover comparison of drug information online database vendors: Dialog and MEDLARS. Ann Pharmacother. 1993;27:634–639
  24. Ramos-Remus C, Suarez-Almazor M, Dorgan M, Gomez-Vargas A, Russell AS. Performance of online biomedical databases in rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:1912–1921
  25. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Systematic reviews: identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. Br Med J. 1994;309:1286–1291
  26. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. The comprehensiveness of MEDLINE and EMBASE computer searches. Searches for controlled trials of homeopathy, ascorbic acid for common cold, and ginko biloba for cerebral insufficiency and intermittent claudication. Pharm Weekbl Sci. 1992;14:316–320
  27. McDonald S, Taylor L, Adams C. Searching the right database. A comparison of four databases for psychiatry journals. Health Lib Rev. 1999;16:151–156
  28. Giustini D, Barsky E. A look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: comparisons and recommendations. J Can Health Lib Assoc. 2005;26:85–89

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

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution