Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29209758›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2018

Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery.

Käthe Goossen, Solveig Tenckhoff, Pascal Probst, Kathrin Grummich, André L Mihaljevic, Markus W Büchler, Markus K Diener

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 143 papers, 98 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed, 98 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

143 citing papers in PubMed, 98 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Efficacy and safety of mesh reinforced cruroplasty with Phasix™ ST vs. Bio-AHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    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. Pooled it
  17. Late Endograft Migration After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists · 2024
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

83 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Käthe GoossenStudy Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Solveig TenckhoffStudy Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Pascal ProbstStudy Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Kathrin GrummichStudy Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
André L MihaljevicStudy Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus W BüchlerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus K DienerStudy Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. markus.diener@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the present study was to determine empirically which electronic databases contribute best to a literature search in surgical systematic reviews.

methodsFor ten published systematic reviews, the systematic literature searches were repeated in the databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. On the basis of these reviews, a gold standard set of eligible articles was created. Recall (%), precision (%), unique contribution (%), and numbers needed to read (NNR) were calculated for each database, as well as for searches of citing references and of the reference lists of related systematic reviews (hand search).

resultsCENTRAL yielded the highest recall (88.4%) and precision (8.3%) for randomized controlled trials (RCT), MEDLINE for non-randomized studies (NRS; recall 92.6%, precision 5.2%). The most effective combination of two databases plus hand searching for RCT was MEDLINE/CENTRAL (98.6% recall, NNR 97). Adding EMBASE marginally increased the recall to 99.3%, but with an NNR of 152. For NRS, the most effective combination was MEDLINE/Web of Science (99.5% recall, NNR 60).

conclusionsFor surgical systematic reviews, the optimal literature search for RCT employs MEDLINE and CENTRAL. For surgical systematic reviews of NRS, Web of Science instead of CENTRAL should be searched. EMBASE does not contribute substantially to reviews with a surgical intervention.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualKnowledge DiscoveryReview Literature as TopicHumansLiterature searchPrecisionRecallSurgerySystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID29209758

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.