Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: How Extensive Are Their Searches?

Ref ID 57
First Author H. Wood
Journal INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE
Year Of Publishing 2017
URL https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/28292DE51DC269BB01EFF6C51727C9D3/S0266462316000660a.pdf/div-class-title-systematic-reviews-of-economic-evaluations-how-extensive-are-their-searches-div.pdf
Keywords • Economic evaluation
• General medical
• Searching
Problem(s) • Insufficient literature searches
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United Kingdom
Aim To assess the adequacy of literature searches in systematic reviews of economic evaluations published in MEDLINE in 2013.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings 71% (30/42) of the included 42 systematic reviews of economic evaluations published in MEDLINE in 2013 included a search of general bibliographic databases beyond MEDLINE and Embase. Sixty-nine percent of reviews used supplementary search techniques (29/42). Five reviews (12 percent) met or exceeded the search resources recommended by NICE (MEDLINE, Embase, NHS EED, EconLit). Search reporting was frequently unclear or incorrect.
Number of systematic reviews included 42
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 1743
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description