- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Language restriction
- An analysis of data sources and study registries used in systematic reviews
Ref ID | 926 |
First Author | J.M. Nick |
Journal | WORLD VIEWS ON EVIDENCE BASED NURSING |
Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
URL | https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12614 |
Keywords |
Grey literature General medical Searching |
Problem(s) |
Language restriction Insufficient literature searches Lack of supplementary searches beyond databases |
Number of systematic reviews included | 199 |
Summary of Findings | From 199 systematic reviews in over eight English and non-English-language databases, through multiple search platforms, in 2019. The mean number of data sources seen in the systematic reviews was 3.9 (SD 2), with a range of 1–10. Eighteen records (9%) used a single data source to conduct the systematic reviews. Four leading language platforms were seen in the systematic reviews: English (100%), up to 8% used Chinese data sources, and 4% included Spanish or Portuguese. The four most frequently used data sources were: (1) Medline (98%), (2) Embase (65%), (3) Cochrane Library (56%), and (4) Web of Science (33%). The percentage of systematic reviews listing study registries was 30%. |
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 |