Workhybrid2025

Supplementary databases increased literature search coverage beyond PubMed and Embase

Tove Faber Frandsen · Caroline Margaret Moos · Mette Brandt Eriksen

16 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology

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 Information Retrieval and Search Behavior

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In health sciences, comprehensive literature searches are crucial for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of systematic reviews. Relying on only a few databases can lead to the omission of relevant studies. The variability in database coverage for different specialties means that important literature might be missed if searches are not broadened. Supplementary databases can enhance the thoroughness of literature reviews, but the efficiency and necessity of these additional searches remain subject to debate. This study aims to explore methods for retrieving publications not indexed in PubMed and Embase, examining coverage of various specialties to determine the most effective search strategies for systematic reviews. METHODS: We selected reviews from the following Cochrane review groups: public health, incontinence, hepato-biliary, and stroke groups. All reviews published in these groups between 2017 and 2022 were analyzed. Publications included in these reviews were manually searched for in PubMed and Embase. If the publication was not found, additional databases such as Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The mean coverage of publications in PubMed and Embase across all four speciality groups was 71.5%, with individual group coverage ranging from 64.5% to 75.9%. An average of 5.8% of publications could not be retrieved in any of the databases studied. Additional databases varied in their coverage. CONCLUSION: While PubMed and Embase provide substantial coverage, supplementary databases can increase retrieval of more relevant studies and are essential for a comprehensive literature search.

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 — 16 citations exist upstream.

References

2015The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching 2019Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources 2017Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study 2021The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis 2018Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies 2020Using the full PICO model as a search tool for systematic reviews resulted in lower recall for some PICO elements 2017Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research 2016Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective 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.