An assessment of the efficacy of searching in biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE in identifying studies for a systematic review on ward closures as an infection control intervention to control outbreaks

被引：18

作者：

Kwon Y. ^{[1
]}

Powelson S.E. ^{[1
]}

Wong H. ^{[2
]}

Ghali W.A. ^{[2
,3
,4
]}

Conly J.M. ^{[2
,3
,4
,5
,6
]}

机构：

[1] Health Sciences Library, Libraries and Cultural Resources, University of Calgary, HSC 1450, Health Sciences Centre, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, T2N 4N1, AB

[2] The Ward of the 21st Century (W21C), GD01 TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, T2N 4Z6, AB

[3] Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, T2N 4Z6, AB

[4] Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, T2N 4Z6, AB

[5] Infection Prevention and Control, Calgary and Area, Alberta Health Services, 1403 29 St NW, Calgary, T2N 2T9, AB

[6] Departments of Medicine and Microbiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Inst. for Public Health and Snyder Institute for Chronic Diseases, Cumming School of Medicine, W21C GD01 TRW Building 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, T2N 4Z6, AB

来源：

Systematic Reviews | / 3卷 / 1期

关键词：

Bibliographic databases; Bibliometrics; Embase; Information retrieval; MEDLINE; Sensitivity; Specificity; Systematic review;

D O I：

10.1186/2046-4053-3-135

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: The purpose of our study is to determine the value and efficacy of searching biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE for systematic reviews. Methods: We analyzed the results from a systematic review conducted by the authors and others on ward closure as an infection control practice. Ovid MEDLINE including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid Embase, CINAHL Plus, LILACS, and IndMED were systematically searched for articles of any study type discussing ward closure, as were bibliographies of selected articles and recent infection control conference abstracts. Search results were tracked, recorded, and analyzed using a relative recall method. The sensitivity of searching in each database was calculated. Results: Two thousand ninety-five unique citations were identified and screened for inclusion in the systematic review: 2,060 from database searching and 35 from hand searching and other sources. Ninety-seven citations were included in the final review. MEDLINE and Embase searches each retrieved 80 of the 97 articles included, only 4 articles from each database were unique. The CINAHL search retrieved 35 included articles, and 4 were unique. The IndMED and LILACS searches did not retrieve any included articles, although 75 of the included articles were indexed in LILACS. The true value of using regional databases, particularly LILACS, may lie with the ability to search in the language spoken in the region. Eight articles were found only through hand searching. Conclusions: Identifying studies for a systematic review where the research is observational is complex. The value each individual study contributes to the review cannot be accurately measured. Consequently, we could not determine the value of results found from searching beyond MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL with accuracy. However, hand searching for serendipitous retrieval remains an important aspect due to indexing and keyword challenges inherent in this literature. © 2014 Kwon et al.

引用

共 24 条

[1]

Evidence-based health care and systematic reviews

[2]

Dickersin K., Scherer R., Lefebvre C., Systematic reviews: identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews, BMJ, 309, 6964, pp. 1286-1291, (1994)

[3]

Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, Ann Intern Med, 151, 4, pp. 264-269, (2009)

[4]

Fraser C., Murray A., Burr J., Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE, BMC Med Res Methodol, 6, 1, (2006)

[5]

Dalziel K., Round A., Stein K., Garside R., Castelnuovo E., Payne L., Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics?, Health Technol Assess, 9, 2, (2005)

[6]

Betran A.P., Say L., Gulmezoglu A.M., Allen T., Hampson L., Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality, BMC Med Res Methodol, 5, 1, (2005)

[7]

Stevinson C., Lawlor D.A., Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns?, Complement Ther Med, 12, 4, pp. 228-232, (2004)

[8]

Lemeshow A.R., Blum R.E., Berlin J.A., Stoto M.A., Colditz G.A., Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies, J Clin Epidemiol, 58, 9, pp. 867-873, (2005)

[9]

Wilkins T., Gillies R.A., Davies K., EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree?, Can Fam Physician, 51, 6, pp. 848-849, (2005)

[10]

Ogilvie D., Hamilton V., Egan M., Petticrew M., Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: how far should you go?, J Epidemiol Community Health, 59, 9, pp. 804-808, (2005)

← 1 2 3 →