Pretražite po imenu i prezimenu autora, mentora, urednika, prevoditelja

Napredna pretraga

Pregled bibliografske jedinice broj: 1042542

Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain


Biocic, Marina; Fidahic, Mahir; Cikes, Karla; Puljak, Livia
Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain // Research Synthesis Methods, 10 (2019), 4; 597-605 doi:10.1002/jrsm.1375 (međunarodna recenzija, članak, znanstveni)


CROSBI ID: 1042542 Za ispravke kontaktirajte CROSBI podršku putem web obrasca

Naslov
Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain

Autori
Biocic, Marina ; Fidahic, Mahir ; Cikes, Karla ; Puljak, Livia

Izvornik
Research Synthesis Methods (1759-2879) 10 (2019), 4; 597-605

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Radovi u časopisima, članak, znanstveni

Ključne riječi
information sources ; search ; systematic review ; Cochrane

Sažetak
BACKGROUND: It has been reported that information sources searched in systematic reviews (SRs) are insufficiently comprehensive. We analyzed information sources used in SRs, as well as how up-to-date were the searches. METHODS: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) through Wiley from 2012 to 2016 to find SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of anesthesiology and pain. We analyzed information sources used and search dates. RESULTS: We analyzed 674 SRs, including 374 non- Cochrane SRs (NCSRs) and 300 Cochrane reviews. The most commonly searched electronic databases reported in all included SRs were Embase (88.6%), MEDLINE (78.3%), CENTRAL (76.1%), CINAHL (29.1%), and PubMed (30.9%). In 303 (45%) SRs, authors reported that they searched clinical trial registries ; 57 (8.5%) reported that they searched for unpublished data, 184 (27.3%) searched grey literature, 51 (7.6%) searched citations, and 546 (81%) searched references of included studies. A substantial amount of Cochrane reviews searched clinical trial registries (75.7%), compared with NCSRs (20.3%). Search date was reported in 647 SRs (96.1%). The median time between the last search date and publication for the SRs that reported search date was 10 months. For the NCSRs, median time between the last search and publication date was significantly higher compared with Cochrane reviews. Nonreporting of search date was more prevalent in NCSRs. CONCLUSION: SRs in the field of anesthesiology and pain often neglect to search all possible information sources, particularly in NCSRs. Cochrane reviews had more comprehensive searching and shorter search to publication time.

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Javno zdravstvo i zdravstvena zaštita



POVEZANOST RADA


Ustanove:
Medicinski fakultet, Split,
Hrvatsko katoličko sveučilište, Zagreb

Profili:

Avatar Url Livia Puljak (autor)

Poveznice na cjeloviti tekst rada:

doi

Citiraj ovu publikaciju:

Biocic, Marina; Fidahic, Mahir; Cikes, Karla; Puljak, Livia
Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain // Research Synthesis Methods, 10 (2019), 4; 597-605 doi:10.1002/jrsm.1375 (međunarodna recenzija, članak, znanstveni)
Biocic, M., Fidahic, M., Cikes, K. & Puljak, L. (2019) Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain. Research Synthesis Methods, 10 (4), 597-605 doi:10.1002/jrsm.1375.
@article{article, author = {Biocic, Marina and Fidahic, Mahir and Cikes, Karla and Puljak, Livia}, year = {2019}, pages = {597-605}, DOI = {10.1002/jrsm.1375}, keywords = {information sources, search, systematic review, Cochrane}, journal = {Research Synthesis Methods}, doi = {10.1002/jrsm.1375}, volume = {10}, number = {4}, issn = {1759-2879}, title = {Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain}, keyword = {information sources, search, systematic review, Cochrane} }
@article{article, author = {Biocic, Marina and Fidahic, Mahir and Cikes, Karla and Puljak, Livia}, year = {2019}, pages = {597-605}, DOI = {10.1002/jrsm.1375}, keywords = {information sources, search, systematic review, Cochrane}, journal = {Research Synthesis Methods}, doi = {10.1002/jrsm.1375}, volume = {10}, number = {4}, issn = {1759-2879}, title = {Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain}, keyword = {information sources, search, systematic review, Cochrane} }

Časopis indeksira:


  • Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC)
    • Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXP)
    • SCI-EXP, SSCI i/ili A&HCI
  • MEDLINE


Citati:





    Contrast
    Increase Font
    Decrease Font
    Dyslexic Font