Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19158999›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2009

Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews.

Adriana Yoshii, Daphne A Plaut, Kathleen A McGraw, Margaret J Anderson, Kay E Wellik

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. LaparoscopicWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2017
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Adriana YoshiiHealth Science Center Libraries, University of Florida-Jacksonville, 653-1 West 8th Street, Jacksonville, FL 32209-6511, USA. ayoshii@ufl.edu
Daphne A Plaut
Kathleen A McGraw
Margaret J Anderson
Kay E Wellik

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions provides instructions for documenting a systematic review's electronic database search strategy, listing elements that should be in the description. Complete documentation of the search strategy allows readers to evaluate the search when critically appraising a review's quality.

objectiveThe research analyzed recently published Cochrane reviews to determine whether instructions for describing electronic database search strategies were being followed.

methodsEighty-three new reviews added to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the first quarter of 2006 were selected for analysis. Eighteen were subsequently excluded because their searches were conducted only in the specialized registers of Cochrane review groups. The remaining sixty-five reviews were analyzed for the seven elements of an electronic database search strategy description listed in the Cochrane Handbook, using dual review with consensus.

resultsOf the 65 reviews analyzed, none included all 7 recommended elements. Four reviews (6%) included 6 elements. Thirty-two percent (21/65) included 5 or more elements, with 68% (44/65) including 4 or fewer. Three included only 2 elements. The 65 reviews represented 41 different Cochrane review groups.

conclusionThe instructions from the Cochrane Handbook for reporting search strategies are not being consistently employed by groups producing Cochrane reviews.

Indexed as

BibliometricsReview Literature as TopicAbstracting and IndexingDatabases, BibliographicGuideline AdherenceGuidelines as TopicHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Subject HeadingsMeta-Analysis as TopicPeriodicals as TopicQuality Control

Identifiers

PMID19158999
PMCPMC2605027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.