Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology

Matt Vassar, Vadim Yerokhin, Philip Marcus Sinnett, Matthew Weiher, Halie Muckelrath, Branden Carr, Laura Varney, Gregory Cook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Failure to perform a comprehensive search when designing a systematic review (SR) can lead to bias, reducing the validity of review's conclusions. Objective: We examined the frequency and choice of databases used by reviewers in clinical neurology. Methods: Ninety-five SRs and/or meta-analyses were located across five prominent neurology journals between 2008 and 2014. Methods sections were reviewed, and all bibliographic databases were coded. Results: On average, 2.59 databases were used in SR searches. Seven reviews included an information specialist, and these reviews reported a greater number of information sources used during the search process. Thirty-nine databases were reported across studies. PubMed/MEDLINE® and EMBASE were cited most frequently. Discussion: Searching too few databases may reduce the validity and generalisability of SR results. We found that the majority of systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not search an adequate number of databases, which may yield a biased sample of primary studies and, thus, may influence the accuracy of summary effects. Conclusions: Systematic reviewers should aim to search a sufficient number of databases to minimise selection bias. Additionally, systematic reviewers should include information specialists in designing SR methodology, as this may improve systematic review quality.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)156-164
Number of pages9
JournalHealth Information and Libraries Journal
Volume34
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jun 2017

Fingerprint

neurology
Neurology
Databases
Information Services
Bibliographic Databases
Selection Bias
PubMed
MEDLINE
Meta-Analysis
trend
source of information
methodology

Keywords

  • bibliometrics
  • database searching
  • evidence-based medicine
  • health care
  • libraries
  • review and systematic search

Cite this

Vassar, M., Yerokhin, V., Sinnett, P. M., Weiher, M., Muckelrath, H., Carr, B., ... Cook, G. (2017). Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 34(2), 156-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12176
Vassar, Matt ; Yerokhin, Vadim ; Sinnett, Philip Marcus ; Weiher, Matthew ; Muckelrath, Halie ; Carr, Branden ; Varney, Laura ; Cook, Gregory. / Database selection in systematic reviews : an insight through clinical neurology. In: Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2017 ; Vol. 34, No. 2. pp. 156-164.
@article{25a91e27885341719e24c4a38f0dd9b8,
title = "Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology",
abstract = "Background: Failure to perform a comprehensive search when designing a systematic review (SR) can lead to bias, reducing the validity of review's conclusions. Objective: We examined the frequency and choice of databases used by reviewers in clinical neurology. Methods: Ninety-five SRs and/or meta-analyses were located across five prominent neurology journals between 2008 and 2014. Methods sections were reviewed, and all bibliographic databases were coded. Results: On average, 2.59 databases were used in SR searches. Seven reviews included an information specialist, and these reviews reported a greater number of information sources used during the search process. Thirty-nine databases were reported across studies. PubMed/MEDLINE{\circledR} and EMBASE were cited most frequently. Discussion: Searching too few databases may reduce the validity and generalisability of SR results. We found that the majority of systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not search an adequate number of databases, which may yield a biased sample of primary studies and, thus, may influence the accuracy of summary effects. Conclusions: Systematic reviewers should aim to search a sufficient number of databases to minimise selection bias. Additionally, systematic reviewers should include information specialists in designing SR methodology, as this may improve systematic review quality.",
keywords = "bibliometrics, database searching, evidence-based medicine, health care, libraries, review and systematic search",
author = "Matt Vassar and Vadim Yerokhin and Sinnett, {Philip Marcus} and Matthew Weiher and Halie Muckelrath and Branden Carr and Laura Varney and Gregory Cook",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/hir.12176",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "156--164",
journal = "Health Information and Libraries Journal",
issn = "1471-1834",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "2",

}

Vassar, M, Yerokhin, V, Sinnett, PM, Weiher, M, Muckelrath, H, Carr, B, Varney, L & Cook, G 2017, 'Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology', Health Information and Libraries Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 156-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12176

Database selection in systematic reviews : an insight through clinical neurology. / Vassar, Matt; Yerokhin, Vadim; Sinnett, Philip Marcus; Weiher, Matthew; Muckelrath, Halie; Carr, Branden; Varney, Laura; Cook, Gregory.

In: Health Information and Libraries Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, 01.06.2017, p. 156-164.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Database selection in systematic reviews

T2 - an insight through clinical neurology

AU - Vassar, Matt

AU - Yerokhin, Vadim

AU - Sinnett, Philip Marcus

AU - Weiher, Matthew

AU - Muckelrath, Halie

AU - Carr, Branden

AU - Varney, Laura

AU - Cook, Gregory

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - Background: Failure to perform a comprehensive search when designing a systematic review (SR) can lead to bias, reducing the validity of review's conclusions. Objective: We examined the frequency and choice of databases used by reviewers in clinical neurology. Methods: Ninety-five SRs and/or meta-analyses were located across five prominent neurology journals between 2008 and 2014. Methods sections were reviewed, and all bibliographic databases were coded. Results: On average, 2.59 databases were used in SR searches. Seven reviews included an information specialist, and these reviews reported a greater number of information sources used during the search process. Thirty-nine databases were reported across studies. PubMed/MEDLINE® and EMBASE were cited most frequently. Discussion: Searching too few databases may reduce the validity and generalisability of SR results. We found that the majority of systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not search an adequate number of databases, which may yield a biased sample of primary studies and, thus, may influence the accuracy of summary effects. Conclusions: Systematic reviewers should aim to search a sufficient number of databases to minimise selection bias. Additionally, systematic reviewers should include information specialists in designing SR methodology, as this may improve systematic review quality.

AB - Background: Failure to perform a comprehensive search when designing a systematic review (SR) can lead to bias, reducing the validity of review's conclusions. Objective: We examined the frequency and choice of databases used by reviewers in clinical neurology. Methods: Ninety-five SRs and/or meta-analyses were located across five prominent neurology journals between 2008 and 2014. Methods sections were reviewed, and all bibliographic databases were coded. Results: On average, 2.59 databases were used in SR searches. Seven reviews included an information specialist, and these reviews reported a greater number of information sources used during the search process. Thirty-nine databases were reported across studies. PubMed/MEDLINE® and EMBASE were cited most frequently. Discussion: Searching too few databases may reduce the validity and generalisability of SR results. We found that the majority of systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not search an adequate number of databases, which may yield a biased sample of primary studies and, thus, may influence the accuracy of summary effects. Conclusions: Systematic reviewers should aim to search a sufficient number of databases to minimise selection bias. Additionally, systematic reviewers should include information specialists in designing SR methodology, as this may improve systematic review quality.

KW - bibliometrics

KW - database searching

KW - evidence-based medicine

KW - health care

KW - libraries

KW - review and systematic search

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017472585&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/hir.12176

DO - 10.1111/hir.12176

M3 - Article

C2 - 28383159

AN - SCOPUS:85017472585

VL - 34

SP - 156

EP - 164

JO - Health Information and Libraries Journal

JF - Health Information and Libraries Journal

SN - 1471-1834

IS - 2

ER -