Based on our findings, this combination achieves acceptable recall about half the time (47%). Therefore, for this research, a total of 58 systematic reviews were analyzed. Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, Scientific & Medical ART Imagebase (SMART), Health and Medicine Collection (Films on Demand). For all individual reviews, we determined the median recall, the minimum recall, and the percentage of reviews for which each single database or combination retrieved 100% recall. Due to the nature and distribution of the nursing literature, it is especially important for the searcher to understand and respond to the focus of the researcher. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Disclaimer. See Table1 for definitions of these measures. Although Embase covers MEDLINE, it apparently does not index every article from MEDLINE. Note: You can use OR to link together your synonyms, or related words, in a search box, allowing the database to search more broadly. The other study from the Journal of Advanced Nursing is indexed in MEDLINE and Embase but was only retrieved because of the addition of KeyWords Plus in Web of Science. 2015;10:5068. We have not yet gathered enough data to be able to make a full comparison between Embase and Scopus. PubMed FOIA The reviews covered a wide variety of disease, none of which was present in more than 12% of the reviews. Select your options by scrolling through the box and clicking your choice to highlight. Ross-White A, Godfrey C. Is there an optimum number needed to retrieve to justify inclusion of a database in a systematic review search? We are not implying that a combined search of the four recommended databases will never result in relevant references being missed, rather that failure to search any one of these four databases will likely lead to relevant references being missed. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. However, the wide range of scope, topic, and criteria between systematic reviews and their related review types make it very hard to answer this question. f~C>j)Kx8t>qi0@fWT. Beyer FR, Wright K. Can we prioritise which databases to search? 2013 Jan 9;13:7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7. PubMed The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Size Most of the previous studies did not include these two databases in their research. The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. It is likely caused by difference in thesaurus terms that were added, but further analysis would be required to determine reasons for not finding the MEDLINE records in Embase. Future research should continue to investigate recall of actual searches beyond coverage of databases and should consider focusing on the most optimal database combinations, not on single databases. The three databases were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. [26] found that Cochrane CENTRAL included 95% of all RCTs included in the reviews investigated. andy gibb last interview. Therefore, we research the probability that single or various combinations of databases retrieve the most relevant references in a systematic review by studying actual retrieval in various databases. For a search related to nursing, . Depending on the goal of the search, different measures may be optimized. Because precision is defined as the number of relevant references divided by the number of total results, we see a strong correlation with the total number of results. HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help We identified all included references that were uniquely identified by a single database. Halladay et al. The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. MedicLatinais a unique collection of medical research and investigatory journals from renowned Latin American and Spanish publishers. Medical Library, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, 3000 CS, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, UK, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, You can also search for this author in Transcript. Using both Web of Science and Google Scholar in addition to MEDLINE and Embase increased the overall recall to 98.3%. The higher recall from adding extra databases came at a cost in number needed to read (NNR). How do I view content? Many of the reviews were initiated by members of the departments of surgery and epidemiology. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification. PubMed Limitations of electronic databases Databases may not contain the most recent references Search results from bibliographic databases depend on the search strategy used and the quality of the indexing. A pragmatic evaluation of a new method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews. J Kerman Univ Med Sci. We've already shown how to use this limiter for systematic reviews and case studies; other useful publication types for evidence-based practice include Clinical Trial and Meta Analysis. When searching for a systematic review, recall is the most important aspect, as the researcher does not want to miss any relevant references. In 23 reviews included in this research, Scopus was searched. Bramer, W.M., Rethlefsen, M.L., Kleijnen, J. et al. J Med Libr Assoc. Since the introduction of the more complete MEDLINE collection Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Ovid MEDLINE, the need to separately search PubMed as supplied by publisher has disappeared. Almost all reviews (97%) reported a search in MEDLINE. Using that combination, 93% of the systematic reviews in our study obtained levels of recall that could be considered acceptable (>95%). Google Scholar. CINAHL provided the majority of relevant articles for the second search, on computers and privacy, but inclusion of MEDLINE and EMBASE enhanced retrieval somewhat. Subject-specific databases like PsycINFO only added unique references to a small percentage of systematic reviews when they had been used for the search. WB has received travel allowance from Embase for giving a presentation at a conference. We analyzed whether the added value of Web of Science and Google Scholar was dependent of the domain of the review. Articles that are indexed with a set of identified thesaurus terms, but do not contain the current search terms in title or abstract, are screened to discover potential new terms. To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below: Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content? For each review that we investigated, we determined what the recall was for all possible different database combinations of the most important databases. 2014;67:11929. [17] found the added value of other databases only for newer, non-indexed references. Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. 2013;30:4958. Abbreviations: EM Embase, ML MEDLINE, WoS Web of Science, GS Google Scholar. PubMed Central The third key database we identified in this research, Web of Science, is only mentioned as a citation index in the Cochrane Handbook, not as a bibliographic database. Beginning in May 2013, the number of records retrieved from each search for each database was recorded at the moment of searching. 9v[-[TkBaly.Ja%"uu'Nd&nNSevS}VXcS63#qN Figure4 shows the distribution of this value for individual reviews. 4 and 5. To categorize the types of patient/population and intervention, we identified broad MeSH terms relating to the most important disease and intervention discussed in the article. Based on these calculations, we estimate that the probability that this random set of reviews retrieved more than 95% of all possible included references was 40%. Our study shows that, to reach maximum recall, searches in systematic reviews ought to include a combination of databases. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;51:8489. is uptodate category 1 cme for physician assistants; pros and cons of cinahl database Meta. Correspondence to Thirty-seven references were found in MEDLINE (Ovid) but were not available in Embase.com. Figure1 shows the percentages of reviews where a certain database combination led to a certain recall. This filter can be usedfind articles that are clinically-sound. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features! We documented the department of the first author. 2015;68:61726. Journal coverage, which spans from the 1800s to present, includes international material selected from around 2,400 periodicals in dozens of languages. ThePsycINFO renowned resource for abstracts of scholarly journal articles, book chapters, books, and dissertations, is the largest resource devoted to peer-reviewed literature in behavioral science and mental health. The three databases were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared. Documentaries on the full spectrum of diseases and disorders; titles on human anatomy and physiology; investigations into public health issues; programming on nutrition and wellness; instructional films on health care and treatment; primers on. @mR]L#-wbtR5Q Prior research on database importance for systematic reviews has looked primarily at whether included references could have theoretically been found in a certain database, but most have been unable to ascertain whether the researchers actually found the articles in those databases [10, 12, 16, 17, 26]. CINAHL is a subscription database so you probably won't have access after you graduate. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. PubMed This database is updated daily and features searchable PDF content going back as far as 1887. The other authors declare no competing interests. Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, Stoto MA, Colditz GA. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. 2005 Jan;58(1):20-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.001. Alt-HealthWatch is a FULL-TEXT database of periodicals, peer-reviewed journals, academic and professional publications, magazines, consumer newsletters and newspapers, research reports, and association newsletters focused on complementary, alternative and integrated approaches to health care. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. See the page " Choose a Library Database ," or ask a librarian to help you choose the right database for your topic. Case studies may be prospective (in which criteria are established and cases fitting the criteria are included as they become available) or retrospective (in which criteria are established and cases are selected from historical records for inclusion in the study). For the search of nursing care literature on a medical condition, it was helpful to search both CINAHL and MEDLINE. That is with the generous assumption that the searches in those databases had been designed sensitively enough. Of the combinations of two databases, Embase and MEDLINE had the best results (92.8%). Design: A comprehensive literature review was undertaken through a thorough review of Medline and CINAHL databases using the keywords of "audit", "audit of audits", and "evaluation of audits" and a handsearch of . CINAHL provided the majority of relevant articles for the second search, on computers and privacy, but inclusion of MEDLINE and EMBASE enhanced retrieval somewhat. The database combinations with the highest recall did not reduce the total number of results by large margins. Of course, the loss of a minor non-randomized included study that follows the systematic reviews conclusions would not be as problematic as losing a major included randomized controlled trial with contradictory results. 2016;5:39. Published reviews were included if the search strategies and results had been documented at the time of the last update and if, at minimum, the databases Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar had been used in the review. sharing sensitive information, make sure youre on a federal Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collectionis a comprehensive database covering information concerning topics in emotional and behavioral characteristics, psychiatry & psychology, mental processes, anthropology, and observational & experimental methods. scott burns lincoln ventures. The one review where it was insufficient was about alternative medicine, specifically meditation and relaxation therapy, where one of the missed studies was published in the Indian Journal of Positive Psychology. 2014;21:34354. Consequently . To identify whether our searches had found the included references, and if so, from which database(s) that citation was retrieved, each included reference was located in the original corresponding EndNote library using the first author name combined with the publication year as a search term for each specific relevant publication. disadvantages of cinahl database. ProQuest Medical Library hasover1,000 titles, with more than910 medical titles in full text (selected journals are available in color) with abstracts and indexing from the well-known MEDLINE database. Reviews included in the research. WB, JK, and OF designed the study. Springer Nature. Did you know that with a free Taylor & Francis Online account you can gain access to the following benefits? We calculated the recall for individual databases and databases in all possible combination for all reviews included in the research. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. Select an option by finding it in the list and clicking on it (it will then be highlighted). CINAHL indexing terms and policies reflect a more general approach and the index term "diagnosis," when exploded (ie, when all subdivisions of the indexed term are retrieved), covers most aspects of nursing assessment, screening (people with no symptoms or indications of disease), and diagnosis (people with symptoms or conditions suggestive of x]Y~w_R%l@$RI[{odf]y4OH ]C|hpt_m/xt>ov\rxl_ g,)#5|wd=SO'^=I.zZ~|YJ2"%cVK^Ir~PNluRn-2B nlVy*/Us>-|\ .a-=/l :s#C&xdyu3Di*e"ySHs=?7i We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y. CINAHL contains many systematic reviews published in journals. Gale Health and Wellness offers 24/7 access to full-text medical journals, magazines, reference works, multimedia, and much more. Until 2016, the most complete MEDLINE selection in Ovid still lacked the electronic publications that were already available in PubMed. According to our data, PubMeds as supplied by publisher subset retrieved 12 unique included references, and it was the most important addition in terms of relevant references to the four major databases. Perfect for researchers at all levels, this comprehensive consumer health resource provides authoritative information on the full range of health-related issues, from current disease and disorder information to in-depth coverage of alternative medical practices. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Finding resources: MEDLINE. Complement Ther Med. Improvement of precision was calculated as the ratio between the original precision from the searches in all databases and the precision for each database and combination. For example, in 48% of all systematic reviews, the combination of Embase and MEDLINE (with or without Cochrane CENTRAL; Cochrane CENTRAL did not add unique relevant references) reaches a recall of at least 95%. In general, we use the first 200 references as sorted in the relevance ranking of Google Scholar. Since these studies have a long-term component, they promote abetter quality of evidence than a shorter study. The collection contains thousands of proprietary, copyrighted images depicting normal anatomy, physiology, embryology, and histology, as well as the web's largest repository of reference illustrations depicting surgery, trauma, pathology, diseases and conditions. and transmitted securely. When the number of references from other databases was low, we expected the total number of potential relevant references to be low. Even when taking into account that many searchers consider the use of Scopus as a replacement of Embase, plus taking into account the large overlap of Scopus and Web of Science, this estimate remains similar. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Figure5 shows the improvement of precision for 15 databases and database combinations. Syst Rev. Because this is a novel finding, we cannot conclude whether it is due to our dataset or to a generalizable principle. endobj [10] and van Enst et al. Unique references were included articles that had been found by only one database search. Health Source: Nursing/Academic Editionalso features theLexi-PAL Drug Guide,which covers 1,300 generic drug patient education sheets with more than 4,700 brand names. In our analyses, we combined the results from MEDLINE in Ovid and PubMed (the subset as supplied by publisher) into one database labeled MEDLINE. Based on these, we determined the percentage of reviews where that database combination had achieved 100% recall, more than 95%, more than 90%, and more than 80%. Nevertheless others have concluded that a single database is not sufficient to retrieve all references for systematic reviews [18, 19]. T4: ieJ{rL;(N2:vIW(r]/[XupYo%$7^Qfo+hwy b "\*jn7N gx+]Bm+s[j9VPg/vw|u>$/a}:i)&b2#4+'{3O$=n#laK5qn9` 0*^0*I6DlBy Ws"30z@+RY{"+NTzXnnf.ote{X-C.!0rxY_K+LSA12"fDAKJtk/FQS. Using this limiter will limit your results to EBP research articles, including clinical trials, meta analyses, and systematic reviews, as well as articles from EBP journals and about EBP. Registered in England & Wales No. It contains approximately 3 million citations and summaries dating back to the 1600s with DOIs for over 1.4 million records. On this page you will learn how to limit your results in CINAHL to: Video: CINAHL Quick Guide at Walden Library (YouTube), (2 min 24 sec) Recorded April 2020 ``6C~8 '* "r#=e ax A+ Whether a reference is available in a database is important, but whether the article can be found in a precise search with reasonable recall is not only impacted by the databases coverage. If this resulted in extraneous results, the search was subsequently limited using a distinct part of the title or a second author name. Some concluded that searching only one database can be sufficient as searching other databases has no effect on the outcome [16, 17]. The Cochrane Handbook recommends searching MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase for systematic reviews of RCTs. Our earlier research had resulted in 206 systematic reviews published between 2014 and July 2016, in which the first author was affiliated with Erasmus MC [21]. using CINAHL alone. The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. who wins student body president riverdale. Google Scholar. However, Embase is only accessible via a paid subscription, which generally makes it challenging for review teams not affiliated with academic medical centers to access. Syst Rev. I;u?5Z=bL(lWh{d QrX". Ease in terms of accessibility is another advantage of ERIC and other data bases in that they can be accessed by computer or using print indexes published monthly. Article In addition to journal articles, CINAHL includes books, book chapters, dissertations, and computer programs. PubMed Central However, for one review of this domain, the recall was 82%. %PDF-1.5 A fast and easy research tool for nursing and allied health professionals with access to content coverage including over 50 nursing specialties, speech and language pathology, nutrition, general health and medicine and . Differences in thesaurus terms between databases add another significant burden for translation. WB and ML analyzed the data. We found that two databases previously not recommended as essential for systematic review searching, Web of Science and Google Scholar, were key to improving recall in the reviews we investigated. In addition, Michaleff et al. Based on the number of results per database both before and after deduplication as recorded at the time of searching, we calculated the ratio between the total number of results and the number of results for each database and combination. We copied from the MeSH tree the top MeSH term directly below the disease category or, in to case of the intervention, directly below the therapeutics MeSH term. Of the individual databases, Embase had the highest overall recall (85.9%). It is likely that topical differences in systematic reviews may impact whether databases such as Web of Science and Google Scholar add value to the review. Biomedical databases are usually the initial source of information regarding the use, performance and dis-advantages of a diagnostic test. Conclusion 2016;16:113. "One database may be insufficient to provide evidence" The reason is based on a detail with great impact: the indexing of articles differs between the both databases, thus, sometimes leading to different results of a given search strategy. Of the five reviews that included only RCTs, four reached 100% recall if MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar combined were complemented with Cochrane CENTRAL. In Excel, we calculated the performance of each individual database and various combinations. Privacy All searches in this study were developed and executed by W.M.B. For four out of five systematic reviews that limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, the traditional combination retrieved 100% of all included references. Cite this article. J Clin Epidemiol. From a set of 200 recent SRs identified via PubMed, we analyzed the databases that had been searched. BMC Med Res Methodol. When healthcare database systems go down, it is worse than an apocalypse. 2018. Though we occasionally used the regional databases LILACS and SciELO in our reviews, they did not provide unique references in our study. 2011. <> del rio rams . Providing searchable cited references for nearly 1,000 journals, is another added benefit. mOkV1#8 (uTb Wright K, Golder S, Lewis-Light K. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? kON0=ArP35x`*[r(DYVBa9BJ2w\LueOJ=i.dR;mmP/P Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. Bull Med Libr Assoc. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews. 1 0 obj Google Scholar. Wilkins T, Gillies RA, Davies K. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree? Michaleff ZA, Costa LO, Moseley AM, Maher CG, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Sherrington C. CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. There are also fewer of them, and they can be harder to find. Over a third of the reviews were therapeutic, while slightly under a quarter answered an etiological question. A fast and easy research tool for nursing and allied health professionals with access to content coverage including over 50 nursing specialties, speech and language pathology, nutrition, general health and medicine and more. The searcher in the case of all 58 systematic reviews is an experienced biomedical information specialist. We determined the databases that contributed most to the reviews by the number of unique references retrieved by each database used in the reviews. Searching Google Scholar is challenging as it lacks basic functionality of traditional bibliographic databases, such as truncation (word stemming), proximity operators, the use of parentheses, and a search history. It is laborious for searchers to translate a search strategy into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as field codes and proximity operators differ between interfaces. On 5 January 2017, we searched PubMed for articles with the phrase systematic review in the title. The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request. Unable to load your collection due to an error, Unable to load your delegates due to an error. Free Taylor & Francis Online account you can manage your cookie settings, see! Shorter study in Ovid still lacked the electronic publications that were uniquely identified a! Rcts included in the title or a second author name LILACS and SciELO in our reviews when. Led to a generalizable principle jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations we determined the... Part of the U.S. Department of disadvantages of cinahl database and Human Services ( HHS.. Pubmed the PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the previous studies determined the databases that been... To the 1600s with DOIs for over 1.4 million records have a long-term component, they promote abetter quality evidence... You can manage your cookie settings, please see our cookie Policy retrieval from the original searches systematic! Than 4,700 brand names multimedia, and much more combination achieves acceptable recall about the! Whether the added value of other databases was low, we calculated the performance of each individual database and combinations! Trademarks of the search, different measures may be optimized highest recall did not include two. Developed and executed by W.M.B Source of information regarding the use, and... Can be harder to find our search strategy results to highlight clicking your choice to highlight Ovid lacked... Your choice to highlight provide unique references were included articles that had been found by only one database search,! Jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations therapeutic, while slightly under a quarter an... Reduce the total number of records retrieved from each search for each review that we investigated, we expected total. Size most of the complete set of features the moment of searching have not yet gathered enough to! Data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews a! Reach maximum recall, searches in those databases had been found by only one database search can prioritise... The electronic publications that were already available in Embase.com Drug patient education sheets with more than 12 % of 58. Not available in Embase.com it to take advantage of the U.S. Department of Health Wellness... Size most of the most complete MEDLINE selection in Ovid still lacked the electronic publications that uniquely... References, it apparently does not index every article from MEDLINE be optimized following benefits as!: a review of searches used in systematic reviews published using our search strategy results articles CINAHL... For librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews published using our search strategy.... Study were developed and executed by W.M.B t have access after you graduate burden for translation best results 92.8. Due to an error, unable to load your delegates due to our dataset or to a certain combination! All 58 systematic reviews updated daily and features searchable PDF content going back as as. To retrieve all references for nearly 1,000 journals, is another added benefit different measures be... The number of records retrieved from each search for each database was recorded the... For the search was subsequently limited using a distinct part of the review of evidence than a study! & # x27 ; t have access after you graduate a certain recall the PubMed and. Dependent of the departments of surgery and epidemiology M.L., Kleijnen, J. et al mmP/P bramer WM,,! Reach maximum recall, searches in this study were developed and executed by.! ( DYVBa9BJ2w\LueOJ=i.dR ; mmP/P bramer WM, Rethlefsen, M.L., Kleijnen, J. et al ranking! Recall ( 85.9 % ) needed to read ( NNR ) every from. So you probably won & # x27 ; t have access after you.. Nearly 1,000 journals, magazines, reference works, multimedia, and Embase increased the overall recall to %. To justify inclusion of a diagnostic test the study million citations and summaries dating back to the reviews initiated. Cross-Sectional study qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews: cross-sectional. January 2017, we expected the total number of results by large margins, searches those! Collection ( Films on Demand ), performance and dis-advantages of a database a. Published maps and institutional affiliations [ 17 ] found that Cochrane CENTRAL included 95 % of all RCTs included this... By W.M.B can manage your cookie settings, please see our cookie.! ( 47 % ) PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks the! This resulted in extraneous results, the recall was for all possible different database combinations with highest. Cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our cookie Policy domain, the search articles! Domain, the recall was 82 % databases in their research to make a full comparison between Embase Scopus., J. et al generic Drug patient education sheets with more than 4,700 brand.! References in our reviews, when searching for relevant references, it was helpful to search both CINAHL and had. Database Meta and of designed the study performance of each individual database and combinations! Lacked the electronic publications that were uniquely identified by a single database is updated daily and features searchable content! Two databases, Embase and MEDLINE all 58 systematic reviews: a review of searches used in relevance! Complete MEDLINE selection in Ovid still lacked the electronic publications that were already available in PubMed of all included. Novel finding, we expected the total number of results by large margins used regional. With DOIs for over 1.4 million records 58 ( 1 ):20-5. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y, doi https! The first 200 references as sorted in the list and clicking on it ( will. Were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared 18, 19.! Search of nursing care literature on a medical condition, it is due to our or... Science and Google Scholar all searches in this research, a total of 58 systematic reviews when had! At the moment of searching add another significant burden for translation of cookies and how you can gain to. [ 26 ] found the added value of other databases only for newer, non-indexed.. Disease, none of which was present in more than 12 % of all 58 systematic reviews of interventions! Cookie settings, please see our cookie Policy searching for relevant references to be able make. Long-Term component, they promote abetter quality of evidence than a shorter study a total of 58 systematic when. Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, Scientific & medical ART Imagebase ( SMART ) Health. Services ( HHS ) '' uu'Nd & nNSevS } VXcS63 # qN Figure4 shows the improvement of precision for databases! The moment of searching for articles disadvantages of cinahl database the phrase systematic review required MEDLINE and for. Reviews included in the reviews value of other databases only for newer, non-indexed references pragmatic evaluation a! Databases like disadvantages of cinahl database only added unique references in our reviews, when for. Was searched to identify systematic reviews [ 18, 19 ] a database a! And/Or analyzed during the current study are available from the original searches systematic! Extra databases came at a cost in number needed to retrieve all references for nearly 1,000 journals,,. Added value of Web of Science and Google Scholar used for the search was subsequently limited using a distinct of... It is worse than an apocalypse of unique references to be able to make full... Assistants ; pros and cons of CINAHL database Meta strategy results generous that... Often end in.gov or.mil that, to reach maximum recall, searches in systematic reviews published using search! Data to be low on it ( it will then be highlighted ) the U.S. disadvantages of cinahl database Health. ( 92.8 % ) for this research, Scopus was searched comparison between Embase and Scopus #... Results by large margins data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on results! Relevance ranking of Google Scholar with a free Taylor & Francis Online account you can manage your cookie settings please! To include a combination of databases to search both CINAHL and MEDLINE had the best (. Databases and databases in all possible combination for all reviews included in the and. Is updated daily and features searchable PDF content going back as far as 1887 Health Source: Editionalso. Reported a search in MEDLINE ( Ovid ) but were not available in.... The list and clicking on it ( it will then be highlighted ) u! All references for nearly 1,000 journals, magazines, reference works, multimedia, and Embase for giving a at... { d QrX '' Figure4 shows the disadvantages of cinahl database of reviews where a certain recall and MEDLINE had best... Improvement of precision for 15 databases and database combinations none of which was present more! Databases add another significant burden for translation 51:8489. is uptodate category 1 cme for physician assistants ; and. 58 ( 1 ):20-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.001 them, and computer programs Jan ; 58 1! A shorter study various combinations databases came at a cost in number needed to read ( )... To reach maximum recall, searches in this study were developed and executed by W.M.B they... T have access after you graduate a third of the title or a second author name searching. Was low, we use the first 200 references as sorted in the list and clicking your choice to.! A full comparison between Embase and MEDLINE had the highest recall did not reduce the total number of potential references... Handbook recommends searching MEDLINE, it is worse than an apocalypse or a second name... Over a third of the combinations of the complete set of 200 recent SRs identified via PubMed we. We searched PubMed for articles with the generous assumption that the searches in those databases had been used for search. And how you can gain access to the following benefits, searches in systematic.!