Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: A systematic review

被引：67
作者：
Crumley E.T. [1 ]
Wiebe N. [2 ]
Cramer K. [3 ]
Klassen T.P. [4 ]
Hartling L. [4 ]
机构：
[1] HealthInfo and Searching Practice Inc., Edmonton, Alta.
[2] Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton
[3] Department of Pediatrics, Complementary and Alternative Research and Education (CARE) Program, University of Alberta, Edmonton
[4] Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Child Health Evidence (ARCHE), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. T6G 2J3
来源：
BMC Medical Research Methodology | / 5卷 / 1期
关键词：
Search Strategy; Electronic Database; Control Trial Register; Index Search; Search Technology;
D O I：
10.1186/1471-2288-5-24
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Background: Systematic reviewers seek to comprehensively search for relevant studies and summarize these to present the most valid estimate of intervention effectiveness. The more resources searched, the higher the yield, and thus time and costs required to conduct a systematic review. While there is an abundance of evidence to suggest how extensive a search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be, it is neither conclusive nor consistent. This systematic review was conducted in order to assess the value of different resources to identify trials for inclusion in systematic reviews. Methods: Seven electronic databases, four journals and Cochrane Colloquia were searched. Key authors were contacted and references of relevant articles screened. Included studies compared two or more sources to find RCTs or controlled clinical trials (CCTs). A checklist was developed and applied to assess quality of reporting. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Medians and ranges for precision and recall were calculated; results were grouped by comparison. Meta-analysis was not performed due to large heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted for: search strategy (Cochrane, Simple, Complex, Index), expertise of the searcher (Cochrane, librarian, nonlibrarian), and study design (RCT and CCT). Results: Sixty-four studies representing 13 electronic databases met inclusion criteria. The most common comparisons were MEDLINE vs. handsearching (n = 23), MEDLINE vs. MEDLINE+handsearching (n = 13), and MEDLINE vs. reference standard (n = 13). Quality was low, particularly for the reporting of study selection methodology. Overall, recall and precision varied substantially by comparison and ranged from 0 to 100% and 0 to 99%, respectively. The trial registries performed the best with median recall of 89% (range 84, 95) and median precision of 96.5% (96, 97), although these results are based on a small number of studies. Inadequate or inappropriate indexing was the reason most cited for missing studies. Complex and Cochrane search strategies (SS) performed better than Simple SS. Conclusion: Multiple-source comprehensive searches are necessary to identify all RCTs for a systematic review, although indexing needs to be improved. Although trial registries demonstrated the highest recall and precision, the Cochrane SS or a Complex SS in consultation with a librarian are recommended. Continued efforts to develop CENTRAL should be supported. © 2005 Crumley et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]  
Sampson M., Barrowman N.J., Moher D., Klassen T.P., Pham B., Platt R., St John P.D., Viola R., Raina P., Should meta-analysis search EMBASE in addition to MEDLINE?, J Clin Epidemiol, 56, pp. 943-955, (2003)
[2]  
Royle P., Waugh N., Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports (TAR) carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system, Health Technol Assess, 7, pp. 1-64, (2003)
[3]  
Suarez-Almazor M.E., Belseck E., Homik J., Dorgan M., Ramos-Remus C., Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough, Control Clin Trials, 21, pp. 476-487, (2000)
[4]  
Alderson P., Green S., Higgins J.P.T., Locating and selecting studies for reviews In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004, Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.2 [Updated December 2003], (2004)
[5]  
Allen I.E., Olkin I., Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved, JAMA, 282, pp. 634-635, (1999)
[6]  
Alderson P., Green S., Higgins J.P.T., Locating and selecting studies for reviews In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004, Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.2 [Updated December 2003], (2004)
[7]  
Dickersin K., Manheimer E., Wieland S., Robinson K.A., Lefebvre C., McDonald S., Development of the Cochrane Collaboration's CENTRAL Register of controlled clinical trials, Eval Health Prof, 25, pp. 38-64, (2002)
[8]  
Hopewell S., Clarke M., Lefebvre C., Scherer R., Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials, The Cochrane Library, 3, (2004)
[9]  
Jadad A.R., Moore R.A., Carroll D., Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?, Control Clin Trials, 17, pp. 1-12, (1996)
[10]  
Lijmer J.C., Mol B.W., Heisterkamp S., Bonsel G.J., Prins M.H., Van Der Meulen J.H., Bossuyt P.M., Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests, JAMA, 282, pp. 1061-1066, (1999)
1234567