PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Pamela Royle

Publications and source records attributed to Pamela Royle.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

A simplified search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials for systematic reviews of health care interventions: a comparison with more exhaustive strategies.

BACKGROUND: It is generally believed that exhaustive searches of bibliographic databases are needed for systematic reviews of health care interventions. The CENTRAL database of controlled trials (RCTs) has been built up by exhaustive searching. The CONSORT statement aims to encourage better reporting, and hence indexing, of RCTs. Our aim was to assess whether developments in the CENTRAL database, and the CONSORT statement, mean that a simplified RCT search strategy for identifying RCTs now suffices for systematic reviews of health care interventions. METHODS: RCTs used in the Cochrane reviews were identified. A brief RCT search strategy (BRSS), consisting of a search of CENTRAL, and then for variants of the word random across all fields (random$.af.) in MEDLINE and EMBASE, was devised and run. Any trials included in the meta-analyses, but missed by the BRSS, were identified. The meta-analyses were then re-run, with and without the missed RCTs, and the differences quantified. The proportion of trials with variants of the word random in the title or abstract was calculated for each year. The number of RCTs retrieved by searching with "random$.af." was compared to the highly sensitive search strategy (HSSS). RESULTS: The BRSS had a sensitivity of 94%. It found all journal RCTs in 47 of the 57 reviews. The missing RCTs made some significant differences to a small proportion of the total outcomes in only five reviews, but no important differences in conclusions resulted. In the post-CONSORT years, 1997-2003, the percentage of RCTs with random in the title or abstract was 85%, a mean increase of 17% compared to the seven years pre-CONSORT (95% CI, 8.3% to 25.9%). The search using random$.af. reduced the MEDLINE retrieval by 84%, compared to the HSSS, thereby reducing the workload of checking retrievals. CONCLUSION: A brief RCT search strategy is now sufficient to locate RCTs for systematic reviews in most cases. Exhaustive searching is no longer cost-effective, because in effect it has already been done for CENTRAL.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2005

Systematic reviews of epidemiology in diabetes: finding the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Methodological research to support searching for those doing systematic reviews of epidemiological studies is a relatively neglected area. Our aim was to determine how many databases it is necessary to search to ensure a comprehensive coverage of the literature in diabetes epidemiology, with the aim of examining the efficiency of searching in support of systematic reviews of the epidemiology of diabetes METHODS: Three approaches were used. First, we defined a set of English language diabetes journals and examined their coverage in bibliographic databases. Second, we searched extensively for diabetes epidemiology articles (in all languages) to determine which are the most useful databases; and third, we analysed the scattering of these articles to determine the core journals in the area. RESULTS: The overlap between MEDLINE and Embase for diabetes journals was 59%. A search for diabetes epidemiology articles across both MEDLINE and Embase, showed that MEDLINE alone retrieved about 94% of the total articles. Searching for diabetes epidemiology studies beyond MEDLINE and Embase retrieved no additional English language journal articles. The only diabetes epidemiology studies found by searching beyond MEDLINE and Embase were found in LILACS, and were Spanish or Portuguese language studies from Latin America; no additional English language studies were found. Only 30% of the meeting abstracts were converted to full publication after three years. One third of journal articles were published in just six journals, with Diabetes Care contributing 14.3% of the articles, followed by Diabetic Medicine (5.0%); Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice (4.1%); Diabetologia (4.0%); Diabetes & Metabolism (2.4%) and Diabetes (2.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that when searching for articles on diabetes epidemiology, MEDLINE and Embase would suffice for English language papers, with LILACS giving some additional non-English articles from Latin America. Although a MEDLINE-only search will retrieve the vast majority of the relevant literature, Embase and LILACs should also be searched to ensure the search is comprehensive. Searching for meeting abstracts is recommended to alert reviewers to unpublished work. The low rate of full publication of meeting abstracts has the danger of producing bias in reviews. Our findings on scattering show that the core literature in this field is concentrated in just six journals.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed2004

Should systematic reviews include searches for published errata?

Our objective was to perform a pilot study to estimate the proportion of published errata linked to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are worthwhile obtaining when doing a systematic review. medline was searched for records that had both 'randomized-controlled-trial' in the publication type field and 'erratum' in the comments field. One hundred records from four general medical journals were examined independently from two different perspectives. From the information specialist's perspective, 74% of the errata were considered worthwhile obtaining; these were mainly errors in tables or figures. Another 9% described less serious errors, but were worth obtaining if easily available. The other 17% were minor errors. From the perspective of the experienced reviewer/public health consultant, 5% of errata were classified as likely to affect a meta-analysis, and 10% as having significant errors that would affect the interpretation of the RCT, but no effect on a meta-analysis; 85% were not considered important enough to affect either. About 5% of errata to RCTs appeared to matter in terms of changing the final conclusions of a systematic review. However, the majority of errata were considered to be worthwhile obtaining, on the basis that having full and accurate data can reduce confusion and save reviewers time.

Information Storage and Retrieval↗
PubMed2003

Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze sources searched in Cochrane reviews, to determine the proportion of trials included in reviews that are indexed in major databases, and to compare the quality of these trials with those from other sources. METHODS: All new systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library, Issue1 2001, that were restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs were selected. The sources searched in the reviews were recorded, and the trials included were checked to see whether they were indexed in four major databases. Trials not indexed were checked to determine how they could be identified. The quality of trials found in major databases was compared with those found from other sources. RESULTS: The range in the number of databases searched per review ranged between one and twenty-seven. The proportion of the trials in the four databases were Cochrane Controlled Trials Register = 78.5%, MEDLINE = 68.8%, Embase = 65.0%, and Science/Social Sciences Citation Index = 60.7%. Searching another twenty-six databases after Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, and Embase only found 2.4% additional trials. There was no significant difference between trials found in the CCTR, MEDLINE, and Embase compared with other trials, with respect to adequate allocation concealment or sample size. CONCLUSIONS: There was a large variation between reviews in the exhaustiveness of the literature searches. CCTR was the single best source of RCTs. Additional database searching retrieved only a small percentage of extra trials. Contacting authors and manufacturers to find unpublished trials appeared to be a more effective method of obtaining the additional better quality trials.

Bibliometrics↗