Therefore, for this research, a total of 58 systematic reviews were analyzed. disadvantages of cinahl database . There are also fewer of them, and they can be harder to find. The four databases that had retrieved the most unique references (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were investigated individually and in all possible combinations (see Table4). Article Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. Wilkins T, Gillies RA, Davies K. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree? <>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/Annots[ 9 0 R 10 0 R] /MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> [10] and van Enst et al. Due to the nature and distribution of the nursing literature, it is especially important for the searcher to understand and respond to the focus of the researcher. &Jl1/>nw\CCX=prz Dcr8UBW3L`Du8*r (+P/:SXQB^ The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. Fifty one of the 81 titles . Thirty-seven references were found in MEDLINE (Ovid) but were not available in Embase.com. Identify resources at your library and in the collections of the worlds libraries. 3 0 obj Disclaimer. Performance of a search can be expressed in different ways. 2015;68:107684. How do I view content? When the number of references from other databases was low, we expected the total number of potential relevant references to be low. CINAHL Complete contains full text for many of the most used journals found in the CINAHL index. For reviews where RCTs are the desired study design, Cochrane CENTRAL may be similarly useful. Consequently . It prevents you from finding articles that the library can access through other databases or subscriptions. Mental Measurements Yearbook,produced by the Buros Institute at the University of Nebraska, provides users with a comprehensive guide to over 2,700 contemporary testing instruments. It is therefore important to search MEDLINE including the Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations references. Disadvantages of Databases 1. It is likely caused by difference in thesaurus terms that were added, but further analysis would be required to determine reasons for not finding the MEDLINE records in Embase. The Cochrane Handbook, for example, recommends the use of at least MEDLINE and Cochrane Central and, when available, Embase for identifying reports of randomized controlled trials [7]. MEDLINE is a great resource for medical . [16] concluded that databases other than MEDLINE/PubMed did not change the outcomes of the review, while Rice et al. pros and cons of cinahl database Categories. To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below: Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content? Embase retrieved the most unique included references, followed by MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 2008;14:4014. Other databases that we identified as essential for good recall were searched much less frequently; Embase was searched in 61% and Web of Science in 35%, and Google Scholar was only used in 10% of all reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. We documented the department of the first author. To learn more about Boolean operators, please see this Quick Answer: Here is an example of how to put together a complex search in CINAHL: Note: If you have not already logged in to the Library databases, you will be prompted to log in with your myWalden Portal user name and password. Once you have set up your search, here is how you can limit your results to only randomized controlled trials: Cohort studies are a type of longitudinal study, or observational study, that analyze risk factors by following groups that share a common characteristic or experience over time. The third key database we identified in this research, Web of Science, is only mentioned as a citation index in the Cochrane Handbook, not as a bibliographic database. PubMed does not. However, Embase is only accessible via a paid subscription, which generally makes it challenging for review teams not affiliated with academic medical centers to access. The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. }UCby^4(-\SHU1B CPn(ULF{fUUog].[>~si|F] mykK+NGz CINAHL contains many systematic reviews published in journals. Ahmadi M, Ershad-Sarabi R, Jamshidiorak R, Bahaodini K. Comparison of bibliographic databases in retrieving information on telemedicine. Article Designed for an audience ranging from novice test consumers to experienced professionals, the MMY series contains information essential for a complete evaluation of test products within such diverse areas as psychology, education, business, and leadership. Because this is a novel finding, we cannot conclude whether it is due to our dataset or to a generalizable principle. using CINAHL alone. Res Synth Methods. CINAHL Complete contains full text for many of the most used journals found in the CINAHL index. We use cookies to improve your website experience. T4: ieJ{rL;(N2:vIW(r]/[XupYo%$7^Qfo+hwy b "\*jn7N gx+]Bm+s[j9VPg/vw|u>$/a}:i)&b2#4+'{3O$=n#laK5qn9` 0*^0*I6DlBy CINAHL Ultimate is the definitive resource for nursing and allied health research, providing full text for more of the most used journals in the CINAHL index than any other database. P?p~p[pL A^!!.zIzTVw8fIrHtbyzb,FKp*^rU BL@BXFHZY+Ifn_R]4CrVt@Z93Pv}Nm,a`YMv'PN` 7"t YsaQ>+dpZhS++pRBb*0n%D,A\G-;rXHD6JK7%ME9,|<9 Google Scholar, Zheng MH, Zhang X, Ye Q, Chen YP. Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. Database designers and developers, the data and database administrators and end-users must understand this functionality to take full advantage of it. PubMedGoogle Scholar. A pragmatic evaluation of a new method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews. Figure5 shows the improvement of precision for 15 databases and database combinations. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM, Anderson PF. CINAHL indexing terms and policies reflect a more general approach and the index term "diagnosis," when exploded (ie, when all subdivisions of the indexed term are retrieved), covers most aspects of nursing assessment, screening (people with no symptoms or indications of disease), and diagnosis (people with symptoms or conditions suggestive of The CINAHL Plus with Full Text database is an unfiltered database containing over 750 nursing and allied health related journals, and indexes another 5,000. Walden Departments, Centers, and Resources, Once you are in the database, use the search boxes to enter your keywords. Of these, 84 references (4.6%) had not been retrieved by our database searches and were not included in our analysis, leaving in total 1746 references. By using this website, you agree to our Google Scholar. This implies that 17% of the reviews in the PubMed sample would have achieved an acceptable recall of 95%. Of all reviews in which we searched CINAHL and PsycINFO, respectively, for 6 and 9% of the reviews, unique references were found. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. This happens, particularly with lesser-used medications and treatments. PubMed Central 2016;87:713. The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request. PubMed Central (PMC) is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM). Click in the check box below Research Article to select this option. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. In the top bar, we present the results of the complete database searches relative to the total number of included references. Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, Schmid CH, Dahabreh IJ. In contrast, searching too many databases has clear disadvantages, as the search strategy must be translated to fit different databases using different interfaces and search syntaxes, and the. @mR]L#-wbtR5Q Careers. The three databases were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared. j 'o For all individual reviews, we determined the median recall, the minimum recall, and the percentage of reviews for which each single database or combination retrieved 100% recall. Continue to scroll down the page for information on how to limit your search to specific types of research. Disadvantages of using CINAHL There really aren't any, except that it's just a single database, and you might miss material that is available elsewhere. volume6, Articlenumber:245 (2017) Click in the check box below Evidence-Based Practice to select this option. 2014;67:11929. In Excel, we calculated the performance of each individual database and various combinations. Halladay et al. Michaleff ZA, Costa LO, Moseley AM, Maher CG, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Sherrington C. CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. 2016;16:161. van Enst WA, Scholten RJ, Whiting P, Zwinderman AH, Hooft L. Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. . To ensure adequate performance in searches (i.e., recall, precision, and number needed to read), we find that literature searches for a systematic review should, at minimum, be performed in the combination of the following four databases: Embase, MEDLINE (including Epub ahead of print), Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar. In both these reviews, the topic was highly related to the topic of the database. For all but one domain, the traditional combination of Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane CENTRAL did not retrieve enough included references. Ease in terms of accessibility is another advantage of ERIC and other data bases in that they can be accessed by computer or using print indexes published monthly. Although we did not use these special topic databases in all of our reviews, given the low number of reviews where these databases added relevant references, and observing the special topics of those reviews, we suggest that these subject databases will only add value if the topic is related to the topic of the database. Would you like email updates of new search results? Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Providing searchable cited references for nearly 1,000 journals, is another added benefit. That is with the generous assumption that the searches in those databases had been designed sensitively enough. CAUTION Do not use Linked Full Text Limit. PubMed For each review that we investigated, we determined what the recall was for all possible different database combinations of the most important databases. Improvement of precision was calculated as the ratio between the original precision from the searches in all databases and the precision for each database and combination. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. PubMed https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y. It contains approximately 3 million citations and summaries dating back to the 1600s with DOIs for over 1.4 million records. Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. The one review where it was insufficient was about alternative medicine, specifically meditation and relaxation therapy, where one of the missed studies was published in the Indian Journal of Positive Psychology. Of the individual databases, Embase had the highest overall recall (85.9%). Scroll down the page below the search boxes to locate these filters or limiters. Subject-specific databases such as CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SportDiscus only retrieved additional included references when the topic of the review was directly related to their special content, respectively nursing, psychiatry, and sports medicine. Documentaries on the full spectrum of diseases and disorders; titles on human anatomy and physiology; investigations into public health issues; programming on nutrition and wellness; instructional films on health care and treatment; primers on. Some concluded that searching only one database can be sufficient as searching other databases has no effect on the outcome [16, 17]. Search Limits. Additionally, search strategies are limited to a maximum of 256 characters, which means that creating a thorough search strategy can be laborious. A multi-disciplinary database, with more than 6,100 full-text periodicals, including more than 5,100 peer-reviewed journals. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. Comparing International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and MEDLINE. Therefore, we research the probability that single or various combinations of databases retrieve the most relevant references in a systematic review by studying actual retrieval in various databases. Perfect for researchers at all levels, this comprehensive consumer health resource provides authoritative information on the full range of health-related issues, from current disease and disorder information to in-depth coverage of alternative medical practices. Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools? Register a free Taylor & Francis Online account today to boost your research and gain these benefits: Comparison of CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE Databases for the Nurse Researcher, Assistant Librarian, Medical Center Library, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, 36688, Associate Director for Public Services, Scott Memorial Library, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, /doi/epdf/10.1300/J115V12N03_04?needAccess=true. Rice DB, Kloda LA, Levis B, Qi B, Kingsland E, Thombs BD. (DOCX 19kb). The researchers that requested the search received a deduplicated EndNote file from which they selected the references relevant for inclusion in their systematic review. 2008;39:e139. 2005;51:8489. The references to these reviews can be found in Additional file 1. Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help MEDLINE did find unique references that had not been found in Embase, although our searches in Embase included all MEDLINE records. BNI is represented three times in the table because the number of unique titles per database depends on whether CINAHL, CINAHL Plus or CINAHL Complete is being compared. Eighty-one journals are uniquely indexed in BNI compared with all versions of CINAHL. For this study, we searched to achieve as high a recall as possible, though our search strategies, like any other search strategy, still missed some relevant references because relevant terms had not been used in the search. 1 0 obj Transcript. The three databases were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared. Future research should continue to investigate recall of actual searches beyond coverage of databases and should consider focusing on the most optimal database combinations, not on single databases. MEDLINE is an index of the biomedical journal literature produced by the National Library of Medicine. ``6C~8 '* "r#=e ax A+ This database also offers indexing and abstracts for more than 10,100 journals and a total of 10,600 publications including monographs, reports, conference proceedings, etc. Imagine you are a patient with cancer and your doctor can't order your pain medication. Springer Nature. vD@3h0MusH%|$e5Cl|Pl aWEEv~3v:hq`M 1LYi"eo*mZTmiMBV(']YJYa:{Xk4S9Tj-MLNAN}V%!U]h*us(5i:8}takdd-~^3I+LR0mkb4Kb3tTl! For the search of nursing care literature on a medical condition, it . It offers job search and workplace skills improvement, skill building in reading, writing, math, and basic science, career certification and licensure exam prep, college and grad school entrance test prep, GED test prep, and more. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree? ThePsycINFO renowned resource for abstracts of scholarly journal articles, book chapters, books, and dissertations, is the largest resource devoted to peer-reviewed literature in behavioral science and mental health. The site is secure. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. [26] found that Cochrane CENTRAL included 95% of all RCTs included in the reviews investigated. A fast and easy research tool for nursing and allied health professionals with access to content coverage including over 50 nursing specialties, speech and language pathology, nutrition, general health and medicine and more. Of the 11 references included in this review, one was found only in Google Scholar and one only in Web of Science. The median % of unique studies was 9.09 %; while the range had a lowest value of 5.0 % to the highest value of 33.0 %. However, when looking at individual reviews, the probability of missing more than 5% of included references found through database searching is 33% when Google Scholar is used together with Embase and MEDLINE and 30% for the Web of Science, Embase, and MEDLINE combination. Unique results from specialized databases that closely match systematic review topics, such as PsycINFO for reviews in the fields of behavioral sciences and mental health or CINAHL for reviews on the topics of nursing or allied health, indicate that specialized databases should be used additionally when appropriate. andy gibb last interview. Aagaard T, Lund H, Juhl C. Optimizing literature search in systematic reviewsare MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? Article A fast and easy research tool for nursing and allied health professionals with access to content coverage including over 50 nursing specialties, speech and language pathology, nutrition, general health and medicine and . The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the This can be offset, as noted above, by going to the EBSCOhost (Health) package of databases. For the databases that retrieved the most unique included references, we calculated the number of references retrieved (after deduplication) and the number of included references that had been retrieved by all possible combinations of these databases, in total and per review. l1FcqL@Bk>>T I;u?5Z=bL(lWh{d QrX". Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Most of the selected UK nursing journals have earlier start and entry dates in CINAHL than BNI. del rio rams . We have not yet gathered enough data to be able to make a full comparison between Embase and Scopus. 2005;93:7480. :p#("-!r>5"@5Ip^P|~1zsqE- @QK Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. J Clin Epidemiol. Library users and staff use WorldCat Discovery to search the WorldCat database of electronic, digital and physical resources; to identify materials they need and to find out where they are available. 2005 Jan;58(1):20-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.001. statement and Gale Health and Wellness offers 24/7 access to full-text medical journals, magazines, reference works, multimedia, and much more. PubMed 0_!g3SR}W/galG/g)Wz37;467WfW_E\wf_Q"#H3)j\]'gr[ ~dFq @Xj7yfC pOYAnaKruN" VI$wkD F\+ Fd7[)g `xBI@Oj Based on these calculations, we estimate that the probability that this random set of reviews retrieved more than 95% of all possible included references was 40%. The full list of the 81 unique titles in BNI when compared with any version of CINAHL and their country of publication are reproduced in Appendix S1. J Clin Epidemiol. We identified all included references that were uniquely identified by a single database. The database itself is unfiltered, but includes many filtered items like systematic reviews. Researchers planning a systematic review generally perform one review, and they need to estimate the probability that they may miss relevant articles in their search.

Ashley Lake, Montana Water Temperature, Dougherty County Election Results, City Of Houston Permit Status By Address, Just Mercy Herbert Death Scene, Great Falls Warrant List, Articles D