Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain

M Biocić · Mahir Fidahić · Karla Cikes · Livia Puljak

10 citations0/0 files storedResearch Synthesis Methods

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that information sources searched in systematic reviews (SRs) are insufficiently comprehensive. We analyzed information sources used in SRs, as well as how up-to-date were the searches. METHODS: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) through Wiley from 2012 to 2016 to find SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of anesthesiology and pain. We analyzed information sources used and search dates. RESULTS: We analyzed 674 SRs, including 374 non-Cochrane SRs (NCSRs) and 300 Cochrane reviews. The most commonly searched electronic databases reported in all included SRs were Embase (88.6%), MEDLINE (78.3%), CENTRAL (76.1%), CINAHL (29.1%), and PubMed (30.9%). In 303 (45%) SRs, authors reported that they searched clinical trial registries; 57 (8.5%) reported that they searched for unpublished data, 184 (27.3%) searched grey literature, 51 (7.6%) searched citations, and 546 (81%) searched references of included studies. A substantial amount of Cochrane reviews searched clinical trial registries (75.7%), compared with NCSRs (20.3%). Search date was reported in 647 SRs (96.1%). The median time between the last search date and publication for the SRs that reported search date was 10 months. For the NCSRs, median time between the last search and publication date was significantly higher compared with Cochrane reviews. Nonreporting of search date was more prevalent in NCSRs. CONCLUSION: SRs in the field of anesthesiology and pain often neglect to search all possible information sources, particularly in NCSRs. Cochrane reviews had more comprehensive searching and shorter search to publication time.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

References

1990The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence 2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews 2000Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?2011Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews 2017Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews 2007Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials 2009Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy 2017Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses

Cited by

2021Performance of conceptual framework elements for the retrieval of qualitative health literature: a case study

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.