Most of the selected UK nursing journals have earlier start and entry dates in CINAHL than BNI. &Jl1/>nw\CCX=prz Dcr8UBW3L`Du8*r (+P/:SXQB^ 2013;66:10517. To ensure adequate performance in searches (i.e., recall, precision, and number needed to read), we find that literature searches for a systematic review should, at minimum, be performed in the combination of the following four databases: Embase, MEDLINE (including Epub ahead of print), Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar. BMC Med Res Methodol. Whether a reference is available in a database is important, but whether the article can be found in a precise search with reasonable recall is not only impacted by the databases coverage. Created by the National Library of Medicine,MEDLINEuses MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) indexing with tree, tree hierarchy, subheadings and explosion capabilities to search citations from over 4,800 current biomedical journals. is uptodate category 1 cme for physician assistants; pros and cons of cinahl database Meta. 2008;39:e139. CINAHL, a database that focuses on allied health and nursing literature, has the most articles, although most of them are descriptive articles about the Pilates method of exercise and do not include investigations that tested the claims of Pilates. Figure1 shows the percentages of reviews where a certain database combination led to a certain recall. WB, JK, and OF designed the study. Performance of a search can be expressed in different ways. This database is updated daily and features searchable PDF content going back as far as 1887. 1996 Jul;84(3):402-8. 2015;4:104. 2005 Jan 8;5:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-2. 2008;14:4014. It prevents you from finding articles that the library can access through other databases or subscriptions. 2005;58:86773. The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. endobj From the published journal article, we extracted the list of final included references. When the number of references from other databases was low, we expected the total number of potential relevant references to be low. Search Limits. The three databases were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared. Therefore, for this research, a total of 58 systematic reviews were analyzed. volume6, Articlenumber:245 (2017) Lastly, access to databases is often limited and only available on subscription basis. Health Source: Nursing/Academic Editionalso features theLexi-PAL Drug Guide,which covers 1,300 generic drug patient education sheets with more than 4,700 brand names. [26] found that Cochrane CENTRAL included 95% of all RCTs included in the reviews investigated. Performance was measured using recall, precision, and number needed to read. The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. CAS Once validated and certified for inclusion, these OA journals are treated with high-quality subject indexing and sophisticated, precise/accurate full-text linking. Disclaimer. Article The three databases were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Article Google Scholar. Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. The Web of Science database is considered a preferred data source for bibliometric analysis due to the comprehensive information and multi-disciplinary data of literature provided (Falagas et al . In the other 48%, the recall by Scopus was suboptimal, in one occasion as low as 38%. The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. <>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/Annots[ 9 0 R 10 0 R] /MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> The higher recall from adding extra databases came at a cost in number needed to read (NNR). %PDF-1.5 This database also offers indexing and abstracts for more than 10,100 journals and a total of 10,600 publications including monographs, reports, conference proceedings, etc. J Clin Epidemiol. Google Scholar adds relevant articles not found in the other databases, possibly because it indexes the full text of all articles. Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Since these studies have a long-term component, they promote abetter quality of evidence than a shorter study. The Cochrane Handbook, for example, recommends the use of at least MEDLINE and Cochrane Central and, when available, Embase for identifying reports of randomized controlled trials [7]. This search was used in earlier research [21]. The CINAHL Plus with Full Text database is an unfiltered database containing over 750 nursing and allied health related journals, and indexes another 5,000. The database combinations with the highest recall did not reduce the total number of results by large margins. 2005;51:8489. pros and cons of cinahl database Categories. Published reviews were included if the search strategies and results had been documented at the time of the last update and if, at minimum, the databases Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar had been used in the review. Also, while the Scopus and Web of Science assumptions we made might be true for coverage, they are likely very different when looking at recall, as Scopus does not allow the use of the full features of a thesaurus. 4 0 obj BNI is represented three times in the table because the number of unique titles per database depends on whether CINAHL, CINAHL Plus or CINAHL Complete is being compared. Of all reviews in which we searched CINAHL and PsycINFO, respectively, for 6 and 9% of the reviews, unique references were found. To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below: Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content? PubMed Central Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Starting with the most recent articles, we determined the databases searched either from the abstract or from the full text until we had data for 200 reviews. The one review where it was insufficient was about alternative medicine, specifically meditation and relaxation therapy, where one of the missed studies was published in the Indian Journal of Positive Psychology. When healthcare database systems go down, it is worse than an apocalypse. For nine of these reviews, all the studies that had been included in the final synthesis were available in the CINAHL database, so it could have been possible to identify all the included studies using just this one database, while for an additional 21 reviews (49 %), 80 % or more of the included studies were available in CINAHL. Embase and MEDLINE combined with either Google Scholar or Web of Science scored similarly well on overall recall (95.9%). One hundred and fifty-nine journals are uniquely indexed in BNI compared with the basic version of CINAHL. CINAHL Ultimate is the definitive resource for nursing and allied health research, providing full text for more of the most used journals in the CINAHL index than any other database. They are usually one of the easiest study types to find in any nursing or medical database. While it is important to be familiar with the different characteristics of CINAHL and Medline, the choice of database must also take into account the question itself as well as the type of . 2015;68:107684. WB and ML analyzed the data. Google Scholar. PubMed Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. Our experience has shown us that it is also impacted by the ability of the searcher, the accuracy of indexing of the database, and the complexity of terminology in a particular field. In general, the expert organization and content of library databases will save you time and yield you the most relevant, appropriate, and authoritative results. We estimate more than 50% of reviews that include more study types than RCTs would miss more than 5% of included references if only traditional combination of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTAL is searched. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Syst Rev. Using that combination, 93% of the systematic reviews in our study obtained levels of recall that could be considered acceptable (>95%). 2 - CRzB:x{m9*eZvs@~&AWSiwY5a%Ofn(ehsVvu-O#Y+(t &c-SvTtFg *@WsWTy._,i@R(ay>EK4J=z}8S6(Cw viV%Q%bs-&{ Of the 11 references included in this review, one was found only in Google Scholar and one only in Web of Science. HR;QBYVCU-7;-7O?zIo =IBK OH)k11H?3xQao7~Z| (DOCX 19kb). l1FcqL@Bk>>T McKibbon KA, Haynes RB, Dilks CJW, Ramsden MF, Ryan NC, Baker L, Flemming T, Fitzgerald D. How good are clinical MEDLINE searches? Handwashing OR "Hand Washing" OR "Hand Rubs" OR "Hand Disinfection". We selected the domain from a pre-defined set of broad domains, including therapy, etiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, management, and prognosis. Of the combinations of two databases, Embase and MEDLINE had the best results (92.8%). A secondary aim is to investigate the current practice of databases searched for published reviews. Bull Med Libr Assoc. Accessibility Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools? Aagaard T, Lund H, Juhl C. Optimizing literature search in systematic reviewsare MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? Systematic review searchers should consider using these databases if they are available to them, and if their institution lacks availability, they should ask other institutes to cooperate on their systematic review searches. Subject-specific databases like PsycINFO only added unique references to a small percentage of systematic reviews when they had been used for the search. Based on our findings, this combination achieves acceptable recall about half the time (47%). BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. CINAHL indexing terms and policies reflect a more general approach and the index term "diagnosis," when exploded (ie, when all subdivisions of the indexed term are retrieved), covers most aspects of nursing assessment, screening (people with no symptoms or indications of disease), and diagnosis (people with symptoms or conditions suggestive of Films Media Group serves the education community through its four brands: Films for the Humanities and Sciences, Cambridge Educational, Meridian Education, and Shopware. Ross-White A, Godfrey C. Is there an optimum number needed to retrieve to justify inclusion of a database in a systematic review search? PMC In general, we use the first 200 references as sorted in the relevance ranking of Google Scholar. 2019 Aug;21(4):853-878. doi: 10.1007/s10903-018-0816-4. andy gibb last interview. 2016;16:161. van Enst WA, Scholten RJ, Whiting P, Zwinderman AH, Hooft L. Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. PubMed 2014;67:11929. Most of the previous studies did not include these two databases in their research. Designed for an audience ranging from novice test consumers to experienced professionals, the MMY series contains information essential for a complete evaluation of test products within such diverse areas as psychology, education, business, and leadership. FOIA See the page " Choose a Library Database ," or ask a librarian to help you choose the right database for your topic. The information specialists of Erasmus MC developed an efficient method that helps them perform searches in many databases in a much shorter time than other methods. official website and that any information you provide is encrypted The median % of unique studies was 9.09 %; while the range had a lowest value of 5.0 % to the highest value of 33.0 %. 2013 Jan 9;13:7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7. The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. Since the introduction of the more complete MEDLINE collection Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Ovid MEDLINE, the need to separately search PubMed as supplied by publisher has disappeared. Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page Because this is a novel finding, we cannot conclude whether it is due to our dataset or to a generalizable principle. California Privacy Statement, Google Scholar. This research goes beyond retrospectively assessed coverage to investigate real search performance in databases. To our surprise, Cochrane CENTRAL did not identify any unique included studies that had not been retrieved by the other databases, not even for the five reviews focusing entirely on RCTs. The site is secure. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Nursing: Indexes & Databases. Abbreviations: EM Embase, ML MEDLINE, WoS Web of Science, GS Google Scholar. The three databases were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM, Anderson PF. Based on these calculations, we estimate that the probability that this random set of reviews retrieved more than 95% of all possible included references was 40%. Although Embase covers MEDLINE, it apparently does not index every article from MEDLINE. Together, these reviews included a total of 1830 references. As our research is performed on systematic reviews, the main performance measure is recall. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG. Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. [16] concluded that databases other than MEDLINE/PubMed did not change the outcomes of the review, while Rice et al. Lorenzetti DL, Topfer L-A, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than MEDLINE for rapid health technology assessments. 2006 Jul;59(7):710-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.09.013. Register a free Taylor & Francis Online account today to boost your research and gain these benefits: Comparison of CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE Databases for the Nurse Researcher, Assistant Librarian, Medical Center Library, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, 36688, Associate Director for Public Services, Scott Memorial Library, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, /doi/epdf/10.1300/J115V12N03_04?needAccess=true. Comput Biomed Res. Wright K, Golder S, Lewis-Light K. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? 2 0 obj In 12 reviews (52%), Scopus retrieved 100% of all included references retrieved by Embase or Web of Science. For reviews in our study that included RCTs only, indeed, this recommendation was sufficient for four (80%) of the reviews. Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab. NOTE There are many limiters that we haven't covered. The other authors declare no competing interests. These are mostly unique PubMed references, which are not assigned MeSH terms, and are often freely available via PubMed Central. Cookies policy. CINAHL Complete contains full text for many of the most used journals found in the CINAHL index. ``6C~8 '* "r#=e ax A+ Percentage of systematic reviews for which a certain database combination reached a certain recall. Explain how resolving your EBP Project issue will improve . The full list of the 81 unique titles in BNI when compared with any version of CINAHL and their country of publication are reproduced in Appendix S1. A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension. An overview of the broad topical categories covered in these reviews is given in Table2. There are also fewer of them, and they can be harder to find. [17] found the added value of other databases only for newer, non-indexed references. The other study from the Journal of Advanced Nursing is indexed in MEDLINE and Embase but was only retrieved because of the addition of KeyWords Plus in Web of Science. Privacy Articles that are indexed with a set of identified thesaurus terms, but do not contain the current search terms in title or abstract, are screened to discover potential new terms. Conclusion In 73 of these, the searches and results had been documented by the first author of this article at the time of the last search.