Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32487023›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in overviews of reviews: a methodological study.

Käthe Goossen, Simone Hess, Carole Lunny, Dawid Pieper

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Key factors for promoting protective behaviours in future pandemics: an umbrella review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026
    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. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Käthe GoossenInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. kaethe.goossen@uni-wh.de.ORCID 0000-0002-1436-1144
Simone HessInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Carole LunnyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, Cochrane Hypertension Review Group and the Therapeutics Initiative, University of British Columbia, 2329 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Dawid PieperInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen conducting an Overviews of Reviews on health-related topics, it is unclear which combination of bibliographic databases authors should use for searching for SRs. Our goal was to determine which databases included the most systematic reviews and identify an optimal database combination for searching systematic reviews.

methodsA set of 86 Overviews of Reviews with 1219 included systematic reviews was extracted from a previous study. Inclusion of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP. The mean inclusion rate (% of included systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking.

resultsInclusion of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean inclusion rate 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [89.0-90.3%]). Combined with reference checking, this value increased to 93.7% [93.2-94.2%]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (99.2% [99.0-99.3%]). Stratification by Health Technology Assessment reports (97.7% [96.5-98.9%]) vs. Cochrane Overviews (100.0%) vs. non-Cochrane Overviews (99.3% [99.1-99.4%]) showed that inclusion was only slightly lower for Health Technology Assessment reports. However, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and reference checking remained the best combination. Among the 10/1219 systematic reviews not identified by this combination, five were published as websites rather than journals, two were included in CINAHL and Embase, and one was included in the database ERIC.

conclusionsMEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking of included studies, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalDatabases, BibliographicDatabases, FactualHumansMEDLINESystematic Reviews as TopicDatabasesOverview of reviewsReview methodsSearch strategySystematic reviewsUmbrella review

Identifiers

PMID32487023
PMCPMC7268249

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.