ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2023
Scientific Literature Database Coverage of Randomized Clinical Trials for Central Serous Chorioretinopathy.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of non-pharmacological interventions on sleep in patients with critical illness: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- Risk factors for postoperative delirium in patients undergoing orthopedic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating search approaches for a network meta-analysis: a case study of Epistemonikos Database of Trials, CENTRAL, and other sources.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Search strategies for systematic reviews in reproductive medicine: a narrative review and practical guide.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic literature searches are the cornerstone of systematic reviews. In this study, we evaluated database coverage of randomized clinical trials for central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC).
methodsWe searched 12 databases (BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central, Current Contents Connect, Data Citation Index, Derwent Innovations Index, EMBASE, KCI-Korean Journal Database, MEDLINE, PubMed, SciELO Citation Index, and Web of Science Core Collection) on 10 April 2023 for randomized clinical trials for CSC. After identifying all eligible studies across all databases, we investigated the coverage of these studies within each database, including the coverage of any combination of two databases.
resultsThe 12 databases yielded 848 records for screening, of which 76 were randomized clinical trials for CSC. No single database provided full coverage. The most comprehensive coverage was provided by EMBASE (88%), the Cochrane Central (87%), and PubMed (75%). A combined search in the Cochrane Central and PubMed led to complete coverage (100%) while reducing the number of records for screening from 848 to 279.
conclusionsSystematic review search design should include multiple databases. For randomized clinical trials for CSC, the combination of the Cochrane Central and PubMed provides an excellent balance between coverage and workload.
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.