Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25874584›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2015

Should we search Chinese biomedical databases when performing systematic reviews?

Jérémie F Cohen, Daniël A Korevaar, Junfeng Wang, René Spijker, Patrick M Bossuyt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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.

Jérémie F CohenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center - University of Amsterdam, Room J1B-210, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.f.cohen@amc.uva.nl.
Daniël A KorevaarDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center - University of Amsterdam, Room J1B-210, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.a.korevaar@amc.uva.nl.
Junfeng WangDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center - University of Amsterdam, Room J1B-210, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.wang@amc.uva.nl.
René SpijkerJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Dutch Cochrane Centre, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. r.spijker-2@umcutrecht.nl.
Patrick M BossuytDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center - University of Amsterdam, Room J1B-210, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p.m.bossuyt@amc.uva.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChinese biomedical databases contain a large number of publications available to systematic reviewers, but it is unclear whether they are used for synthesizing the available evidence.

methodsWe report a case of two systematic reviews on the accuracy of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide for diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis. In one of these, the authors did not search Chinese databases; in the other, they did. We additionally assessed the extent to which Cochrane reviewers have searched Chinese databases in a systematic overview of the Cochrane Library (inception to 2014).

resultsThe two diagnostic reviews included a total of 269 unique studies, but only 4 studies were included in both reviews. The first review included five studies published in the Chinese language (out of 151) while the second included 114 (out of 118). The summary accuracy estimates from the two reviews were comparable. Only 243 of the published 8,680 Cochrane reviews (less than 3%) searched one or more of the five major Chinese databases. These Chinese databases index about 2,500 journals, of which less than 6% are also indexed in MEDLINE. All 243 Cochrane reviews evaluated an intervention, 179 (74%) had at least one author with a Chinese affiliation; 118 (49%) addressed a topic in complementary or alternative medicine. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsAlthough searching Chinese databases may lead to the identification of a large amount of additional clinical evidence, Cochrane reviewers have rarely included them in their search strategy. We encourage future initiatives to evaluate more systematically the relevance of searching Chinese databases, as well as collaborative efforts to allow better incorporation of Chinese resources in systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDatabases, BibliographicDatabases, FactualInformation Storage and RetrievalReview Literature as TopicArthritis, RheumatoidChinaHumansMEDLINEPeptides, CyclicPeptides, Cyclic

Identifiers

PMID25874584
PMCPMC4374381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.