Embedded Files
Appraisal of: "Kwon, Y., Powelson, S.E., Wong, H., Ghali, W.A., & Conly, J.M. (2014). An assessment of the efficacy of searching in biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE in identifying studies for a systematic review on ward closures as an infection control intervention to control outbreaks. Systematic Reviews, 3:135. "
Appraisal of: "Kwon, Y., Powelson, S.E., Wong, H., Ghali, W.A., & Conly, J.M. (2014). An assessment of the efficacy of searching in biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE in identifying studies for a systematic review on ward closures as an infection control intervention to control outbreaks. Systematic Reviews, 3:135. "
Reviewer(s):
Alan Lovell
Sophie Robinson
MS Copilot
Full Reference:
Kwon, Y., Powelson, S.E., Wong, H., Ghali, W.A., & Conly, J.M. (2014). An assessment of the efficacy of searching in biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE in identifying studies for a systematic review on ward closures as an infection control intervention to control outbreaks. Systematic Reviews, 3:135. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-13.
Short description:
This study evaluated the effectiveness of searching biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE for identifying studies in a systematic review on ward closures as an infection control measure. The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and IndMED, along with hand searching bibliographies and conference abstracts. They analyzed the relative recall and sensitivity of each database in retrieving 97 included articles.
MEDLINE and Embase each retrieved 80 articles (82.5% recall), with four unique articles each. CINAHL retrieved 35 articles, also contributing four unique ones. LILACS and IndMED retrieved none, although LILACS indexed 75 of the included articles. Eight articles were found only through hand searching. The study concluded that while searching beyond MEDLINE may offer marginal gains, hand searching remains critical due to indexing and keyword limitations in observational literature.
Limitations stated by the author(s):
The review did not include controlled studies, preventing meta-analysis and limiting impact assessment of individual citations.
Findings are specific to one systematic review focused on observational studies, limiting generalizability.
The contribution of each database could not be quantified in terms of influence on review conclusions.
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
The study does not assess how missed articles might have altered the review’s findings or recommendations.
The analysis focuses on recall and sensitivity but lacks evaluation of precision or relevance of retrieved articles.
The value of regional databases like LILACS may be underestimated due to language and search strategy limitations.
The study’s observational focus may not reflect database performance in reviews of interventional or controlled studies.
Study Type:
Database Search Evaluation within a Systematic Review Context
Related Chapters:
Tags:
Databases
Literature searching
Page updated
Report abuse