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
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United States
Aim To capture author practices in choosing English and non-English-language databases, listing all the databases searched, and incorporating study registries as part of the search strategy.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
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%.
Number of systematic reviews included 199
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 199
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description