Cargando…
Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and d...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9764566/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36536437 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00468-8 |
_version_ | 1784853299528204288 |
---|---|
author | Eybye, Martin Nørregård Madsen, Simon Dyrløv Schultz, Anders Nikolai Ørsted Nim, Casper Glissmann |
author_facet | Eybye, Martin Nørregård Madsen, Simon Dyrløv Schultz, Anders Nikolai Ørsted Nim, Casper Glissmann |
author_sort | Eybye, Martin Nørregård |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general. This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT. METHODS: SRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs. RESULTS: Eighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%. CONCLUSIONS: For SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9764566 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97645662022-12-21 Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study Eybye, Martin Nørregård Madsen, Simon Dyrløv Schultz, Anders Nikolai Ørsted Nim, Casper Glissmann Chiropr Man Therap Research BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general. This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT. METHODS: SRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs. RESULTS: Eighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%. CONCLUSIONS: For SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance. BioMed Central 2022-12-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9764566/ /pubmed/36536437 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00468-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Eybye, Martin Nørregård Madsen, Simon Dyrløv Schultz, Anders Nikolai Ørsted Nim, Casper Glissmann Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study |
title | Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study |
title_full | Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study |
title_fullStr | Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study |
title_full_unstemmed | Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study |
title_short | Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study |
title_sort | database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9764566/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36536437 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00468-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT eybyemartinnørregard databasecoverageandtheiruseinsystematicreviewsregardingspinalmanipulativetherapyanexploratorystudy AT madsensimondyrløv databasecoverageandtheiruseinsystematicreviewsregardingspinalmanipulativetherapyanexploratorystudy AT schultzandersnikolaiørsted databasecoverageandtheiruseinsystematicreviewsregardingspinalmanipulativetherapyanexploratorystudy AT nimcasperglissmann databasecoverageandtheiruseinsystematicreviewsregardingspinalmanipulativetherapyanexploratorystudy |