Is it necessary to search multiple databases for a focussed clinical question?

ID: 

45

Session: 

Poster session 3

Date: 

Tuesday 25 October 2016 - 10:30 to 11:00

Location: 

All authors in correct order:

Mann M1, Hood K1, Truby R1, Powell C1, Allen D1
1 Cardiff University, UK
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Mala Mann

Contact person:

Abstract text
Background: A search strategy for a systematic review is intended to be comprehensive and identify all relevant articles for a focussed question. We are currently carrying out a review funded by the National Institute for Health Research, to identify the evidence base for the core components of an effective Paediatric Early Warning System.

Objectives: To identify and compare information sources and to evaluate their contribution to studies which were included in the review.

Methods: We searched across a set of 10 databases from their inception to identify relevant studies in all languages. In addition, we searched trial registers, a range of relevant websites and key journals. The search retrieved 3618 papers in total which was imported into EndNote. After manual deduplication and removing clearly irrelevant records, 2116 papers remained for screening of title and abstract. From these papers, 553 were screened in full text and 61 papers selected for potential inclusion.

Results: We will provide data on the resources from which we retrieved the 61 papers and if the study is unique to a particular database. From our findings we will discuss whether it is essential to search multiple databases or comply with the set of core databases recommended in Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR).

Conclusions: The results will be useful in providing guidance for information specialists and systematic reviewers when planning their searches and writing their search methodology.