Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The validity of a systematic review is partially based on a comprehensive literature search. It is recommended that a search strategy include the databases, the hand-searching of the bibliographies of selected articles, conference proceedings, and abstracts; and personal communications with researchers. Selective search can affect the quality of the systematic review.
Objectives: To investigate the language restrictions and handsearching of systematic reviews between Chinese academic journals and Cochrane library.
Methods: We searched Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM) which is considered Chinese MEDLINE from January 2009 to December 2011 and all meta-analysis of interventions were included. We also searched Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issued 1, 2012) and 10% random samples of meta-analysis of interventions were included from 2009 to 2011. Each meta-analysis was independently identified and evaluated by 2 reviewers.
Results: Finally 967 Chinese meta-analysises were included. 674 (70%) didn’t report the language restrictions. 138 (14%) had no language restrictions; 155 (16%) had language restrictions, of which 31 (20%) were related to traditional Chinese medicine; 598 (62%) didn’t report the handsearching; 369 studies (38%) made the handsearching, of which 83 (23%) of the 269 studies were related to traditional Chinese medicine. One hundred and thirty-seven Cochrane meta-analysises were included. One (0.74%) had language restrictions which were published in 2010 and limited to English, French, Spanish, Italian and German; 86 (63%) had no language restrictions; 50 (36%) didn’t report the language restrictions; 79 (58%) of the 137 studies didn’t report the handsearching; 58 (42%) made the handsearching.
Conclusions: The systematic review shouldn’t exclude any language studies and the Cochrane Handbook recommends the handsearching. The rate of language restrictions of Chinese meta-analysises was 18 times than English, of which the studies related to the traditional Chinese medicine accounted for 1/5. The handsearching rate of Chinese systematic reviews was slightly low than English.
Objectives: To investigate the language restrictions and handsearching of systematic reviews between Chinese academic journals and Cochrane library.
Methods: We searched Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM) which is considered Chinese MEDLINE from January 2009 to December 2011 and all meta-analysis of interventions were included. We also searched Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issued 1, 2012) and 10% random samples of meta-analysis of interventions were included from 2009 to 2011. Each meta-analysis was independently identified and evaluated by 2 reviewers.
Results: Finally 967 Chinese meta-analysises were included. 674 (70%) didn’t report the language restrictions. 138 (14%) had no language restrictions; 155 (16%) had language restrictions, of which 31 (20%) were related to traditional Chinese medicine; 598 (62%) didn’t report the handsearching; 369 studies (38%) made the handsearching, of which 83 (23%) of the 269 studies were related to traditional Chinese medicine. One hundred and thirty-seven Cochrane meta-analysises were included. One (0.74%) had language restrictions which were published in 2010 and limited to English, French, Spanish, Italian and German; 86 (63%) had no language restrictions; 50 (36%) didn’t report the language restrictions; 79 (58%) of the 137 studies didn’t report the handsearching; 58 (42%) made the handsearching.
Conclusions: The systematic review shouldn’t exclude any language studies and the Cochrane Handbook recommends the handsearching. The rate of language restrictions of Chinese meta-analysises was 18 times than English, of which the studies related to the traditional Chinese medicine accounted for 1/5. The handsearching rate of Chinese systematic reviews was slightly low than English.