Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Cochrane Library is a major source of systematic reviews. It contains, among other bibliographic databases, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA). Epistemonikos is a new open access bibliographic database. It includes overviews, systematic reviews, structured summaries of systematic reviews and primary studies included in reviews. The Epistemonikos team regularly search several sources, including CDSR, DARE and HTA, to identify systematic reviews to populate the Epistemonikos database.
Objectives: To compare the results of non-complex searches for systematic reviews in Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library using similar search strategies to see if Epistemonikos can replace the Cochrane Library for such searches.
Methods: We compared a sample of 20 non-complex searches using PICOs (participant, intervention, comparison, outcomes) from commissioned systematic reviews. We searched Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CDSR, DARE and HTA) and compared the search hits. We used the same text words in Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library, but adapted the search strategies making the most of available search options in both sources. All search results were exported to EndNote. In EndNote, we identified duplicates, unique hits and unique relevant hits from Epistemonikos and from The Cochrane Library.
Results and conclusions: Preliminary results show that there are many duplicate references within Epistemonikos itself. There is a substantial overlap between Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library. However, we found unique relevant hits in both Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library. Final results will be available in time for the Colloquium.
Objectives: To compare the results of non-complex searches for systematic reviews in Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library using similar search strategies to see if Epistemonikos can replace the Cochrane Library for such searches.
Methods: We compared a sample of 20 non-complex searches using PICOs (participant, intervention, comparison, outcomes) from commissioned systematic reviews. We searched Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CDSR, DARE and HTA) and compared the search hits. We used the same text words in Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library, but adapted the search strategies making the most of available search options in both sources. All search results were exported to EndNote. In EndNote, we identified duplicates, unique hits and unique relevant hits from Epistemonikos and from The Cochrane Library.
Results and conclusions: Preliminary results show that there are many duplicate references within Epistemonikos itself. There is a substantial overlap between Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library. However, we found unique relevant hits in both Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library. Final results will be available in time for the Colloquium.