ArticleWorldviews on evidence-based nursing2022
An analysis of data sources and study registries used in systematic reviews.
Article in Worldviews on evidence-based nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the evidence on lifestyle diseases: protocol for a systematic scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Three decades of clinical trials in Portuguese-speaking Africa: a comprehensive scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Availability of results of clinical trials registered on EU Clinical Trials Register: cross sectional audit study.BMJ medicine · 2024Article
- An analysis of data sources and study registries used in systematic reviews.Worldviews on evidence-based nursing · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReporting standards for data sources in systematic reviews (SRs) have been developed, yet research shows varying compliance in the methods section. When this happens, replication of search results is difficult and creates ambiguous and biased data sources.
aimsThis study captured author practices in choosing English and non-English-language databases, listing all the databases searched, and incorporating study registries as part of the search strategy.
methodsUsing an analytic, cross-sectional, study design, volunteer data collectors (n = 107) searched one of two assigned English language platforms for SRs on specified health conditions. All the data sources found in the methods section of each SR were documented and analyzed for patterns using bibliographic techniques.
resultsThe final sample size of the SRs reviewed was N = 199. The mean number of data sources seen in the SRs was 3.9 (SD 2), with a range of 1-10. Eighteen records (9%) used a single data source to conduct the SRs. Four leading language platforms were seen in the SRs: English (100% of occurrences), up to 8% used Chinese data sources, and 4% included Spanish or Portuguese. The four most frequently used data sources were: (1) Medline (98%), (2) Embase (65%), (3) Cochrane Library (56%), and (4) Web of Science (33%). The percentage of SRs listing study registries was 30%. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Strategies to reduce bias and increase the rigor and reliability of SRs include comprehensive search practices by exploring non-English-language databases, using multiple data sources, and searching study registries. By following PRISMA-S guidelines to report data sources correctly, reproducibility can be accomplished.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.