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