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 General medical
Economic evaluation
Searching
Problem(s) Insufficient literature searches
Number of systematic reviews included 42
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.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No