| Ref ID | 751 |
| First Author | M.Biocic |
| Journal | RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31393677/ |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Grey literature • Pain • Non-Cochrane reviews • Searching |
| Problem(s) |
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Insufficient literature searches • Lack of supplementary searches beyond databases |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Croatia |
| Aim | To assess the information sources and currency of searches from both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of RCTs indexed in PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through Wiley from 2012 to 2016 in the field of anaesthesiology and pain. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Systematic reviews in the field of anaesthesiology and pain often neglected to search all possible information sources, particularly Non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Non-reporting of search date was more prevalent in non-Cochrane reviews. From 674 included reviews (300 Cochrane; 374 non-Cochrane) 303 (45%) reported that they searched clinical trial registries; 57 (8.5%) reported that they searched for unpublished data, 184 (27.3%) searched grey literature, 51 (7.6%) searched citations, and 546 (81%) searched references of included studies. A substantial amount of Cochrane reviews searched clinical trial registries (75.7%), compared with non-Cochrane (20.3%). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 674 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1930 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |