What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?

被引：27
作者：
Wright K. [1 ]
Golder S. [2 ]
Lewis-Light K. [1 ]
机构：
[1] University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, York
[2] University of York, Department of Health Sciences, York
来源：
Systematic Reviews | / 4卷 / 1期
关键词：
Included Study; Science Citation Index; Bibliographic Database; Unique Study; Realist Review;
D O I：
10.1186/s13643-015-0069-4
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Background: The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) is generally thought to be a good source to search when conducting a review of qualitative evidence. Case studies have suggested that using CINAHL could be essential for reviews of qualitative studies covering topics in the nursing field, but it is unclear whether this can be extended more generally to reviews of qualitative studies in other topic areas. Methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis of a sample of systematic reviews of qualitative studies to investigate CINAHL's potential contribution to identifying the evidence. In particular, we planned to identify the percentage of included studies available in CINAHL and the percentage of the included studies unique to the CINAHL database. After screening 58 qualitative systematic reviews identified from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), we created a sample set of 43 reviews covering a range of topics including patient experience of both illnesses and interventions. Results: For all 43 reviews (21 %) in our sample, we found that some of the included studies were available in CINAHL. For nine of these reviews, all the studies that had been included in the final synthesis were available in the CINAHL database, so it could have been possible to identify all the included studies using just this one database, while for an additional 21 reviews (49 %), 80 % or more of the included studies were available in CINAHL. Consequently, for a total of 30 reviews, or 70 % of our sample, 80 % or more of the studies could be identified using CINAHL alone. 11 reviews, where we were able to recheck all the databases used by the original review authors, had included a study that was uniquely identified from the CINAHL database. The median number of unique studies was 9.09; while the range had a lowest value of 5.0 to the highest value of 33.0. Conclusions: Assuming a rigorous search strategy was used and the records sought were accurately indexed, we could expect CINAHL to be a good source of primary studies for qualitative evidence syntheses. While we found some indication that CINAHL had the potential to provide unique studies for systematic reviews, we could only fully test this on a limited number of reviews, so we are less confident about this finding. © 2015 Wright et al.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]  
Higgins J., Green S., Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], (2011)
[2]  
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in health care, (2009)
[3]  
Eden J., Levit L., Berg A., Morton S., Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews, (2011)
[4]  
Shaw R.L., Booth A., Sutton A.J., Miller T., Smith J.A., Young B., Et al., Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies, BMC Med Res Methodol, (2004)
[5]  
Flemming K., Briggs M., Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: evaluation of three strategies, J Adv Nurs, 57, 1, pp. 95-100, (2007)
[6]  
Barroso J., Gollop C.J., Sandelowski M., Meynell J., Pearce P.F., Collins L.J., The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies, West J Nurs Res, 25, 2, pp. 153-178, (2003)
[7]  
Wilczynski N.L., Marks S., Haynes R.B., Search strategies for identifying qualitative studies in CINAHL, Qual Health Res, 17, 5, pp. 705-710, (2007)
[8]  
Subirana M., Sola I., Garcia J.M., Gich I., Urrutia G., A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification, J Clin Epidemiol, 25, 1, pp. 20-25, (2005)
[9]  
King K., Meader N., Wright K., Graham H., Power C., Petticrew M., Et al., Characteristics of interventions targeting multiple lifestyle risk behaviours in adult populations: a systematic scoping review, PLoS One, (2015)
[10]  
Mahant S., Jovcevska V., Cohen E., Decision-making around gastrostomy-feeding in children with neurologic disabilities, Pediatrics, 127, 6, pp. 1471-1481, (2011)
1234567