Embedded Files
Appraisal of: "Aagaard, T., Lund, H., & Juhl, C. (2016). Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews – are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16, 161."
Appraisal of: "Aagaard, T., Lund, H., & Juhl, C. (2016). Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews – are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16, 161."
Reviewer(s):
Alan Lovell
Deirdre Beecher
MS Copilot
Full Reference:
Aagaard, T., Lund, H., & Juhl, C. (2016). Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews – are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area ofmusculoskeletal disorders? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16, 161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0264-6
Short description:
This study evaluates the effectiveness of the Cochrane MECIR guideline recommendation to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL when conducting systematic reviews in the musculoskeletal field. The authors analyzed 23 Cochrane systematic reviews that included at least five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reported comprehensive search strategies. They calculated relative recall—the proportion of included studies retrieved by each database—and cumulative median recall across databases.
The results showed that searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL yielded a median recall of 88.9%. Adding ten additional databases (e.g., SCOPUS, CINAHL, PEDro) increased recall only marginally to 90.9%. The study concludes that while the three core databases are essential, they are not sufficient alone to identify all relevant studies. Supplementary sources such as reference lists and expert consultation may be necessary to improve recall.
Limitations stated by the author(s):
The true number of relevant studies is difficult to define; the study assumes that all relevant studies were included in the selected systematic reviews.
Changes in database indexing over time may affect reproducibility of search results.
The assumption that the original search strategies used in the systematic reviews were optimal and captured all relevant studies may not hold.
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
The study does not assess the precision or quality of the retrieved studies, focusing solely on recall.
It assumes that systematic reviews included all relevant studies, which may not be accurate due to potential search strategy errors or publication bias.
The marginal gain from additional databases may vary significantly across different clinical areas, limiting the broader applicability of the findings
Study Type:
Methodological study (meta-research) evaluating database recall in systematic reviews.
Related Chapters:
Tags:
Databases
Systematic Reviews
Page updated
Report abuse