Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Despite advances in the conduct, reporting and indexing of systematic reviews (SR) publications, challenges remain for clinicians in understanding reported results, interpreting the essential 'bottom line' and applying this to clinical practice and patient care. KSR Pain Evidence aims to do that as a single source of value-added critical appraisals of the best SR evidence in pain management (www.ksrevidence.com).
Objectives: To identify systematic reviews on pain management from a comprehensive range of resources, in order to build a database of critically appraised SRs with clinical bottom lines.
Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, In-Process Citations, Daily Update, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), PsycINFO, AMED, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and CINAHL were searched to retrieve systematic reviews on pain and pain relief. Searches were limited from 2010 onwards. Results were downloaded, and duplicates were removed using EndNote X6. Experienced Information Specialists sifted the results to remove non-SR records, reviews of reviews, reviews of guidelines and non-pain records. Reviewers critically appraised each review, using an adaption of the ROBIS tool (for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews). For each review, an overall risk of bias summary and clinical bottom line statement were written.
Results: Searches found 23,290 records (Table 1). Following deduplication 11,745 records were sifted for inclusion. As of December 2014, 2577 relevant records were submitted for critical appraisal in the KSR Pain Evidence database, which currently comprises over 2450 completed appraisals.
Prior to deduplication Embase yielded 36% of records appraised, and 76% of considered SR records were retrieved from CINAHL, MEDLINE and Embase (Figure 1).
Conclusions: Comprehensive searches of multiple sources, in combination with a sensitive search strategy, are necessary to ensure robust retrieval of systematic reviews on pain. KSR Pain Evidence brings together critical appraisals of SRs, identified by systematic searches of a wide range of resources.
Objectives: To identify systematic reviews on pain management from a comprehensive range of resources, in order to build a database of critically appraised SRs with clinical bottom lines.
Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, In-Process Citations, Daily Update, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), PsycINFO, AMED, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and CINAHL were searched to retrieve systematic reviews on pain and pain relief. Searches were limited from 2010 onwards. Results were downloaded, and duplicates were removed using EndNote X6. Experienced Information Specialists sifted the results to remove non-SR records, reviews of reviews, reviews of guidelines and non-pain records. Reviewers critically appraised each review, using an adaption of the ROBIS tool (for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews). For each review, an overall risk of bias summary and clinical bottom line statement were written.
Results: Searches found 23,290 records (Table 1). Following deduplication 11,745 records were sifted for inclusion. As of December 2014, 2577 relevant records were submitted for critical appraisal in the KSR Pain Evidence database, which currently comprises over 2450 completed appraisals.
Prior to deduplication Embase yielded 36% of records appraised, and 76% of considered SR records were retrieved from CINAHL, MEDLINE and Embase (Figure 1).
Conclusions: Comprehensive searches of multiple sources, in combination with a sensitive search strategy, are necessary to ensure robust retrieval of systematic reviews on pain. KSR Pain Evidence brings together critical appraisals of SRs, identified by systematic searches of a wide range of resources.