Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Cochrane recommends searching the literature without language restrictions to avoid language bias. China is currently ranked second in the world, after the USA, in terms of the total number of published scientific papers.
Objectives: To describe the use that Cochrane reviewers make of Chinese biomedical databases.
Methods: In a systematic overview of the Cochrane Library from inception to 2014, we assessed the extent to which Cochrane reviewers had searched five major Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM), Chinese Medical Current Content (CMCC), VIP, and WANFANG (China Online Journals)). These Chinese databases index about 2500 journals, of which less than 6% are also indexed in MEDLINE.
Results: Only 243 of 8680 published Cochrane Systematic Reviews (3%) searched one or more of the five major Chinese databases. All 243 systematic reviews evaluated an intervention; 179 (74%) had at least one co-author with a Chinese affiliation; 118 (49%) addressed a topic in complementary and alternative medicine, such as acupuncture.
Conclusions: Cochrane reviewers rarely include Chinese databases in their literature searches. Further research should evaluate the consequences of this failure to search Chinese databases when performing systematic reviews.
Objectives: To describe the use that Cochrane reviewers make of Chinese biomedical databases.
Methods: In a systematic overview of the Cochrane Library from inception to 2014, we assessed the extent to which Cochrane reviewers had searched five major Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM), Chinese Medical Current Content (CMCC), VIP, and WANFANG (China Online Journals)). These Chinese databases index about 2500 journals, of which less than 6% are also indexed in MEDLINE.
Results: Only 243 of 8680 published Cochrane Systematic Reviews (3%) searched one or more of the five major Chinese databases. All 243 systematic reviews evaluated an intervention; 179 (74%) had at least one co-author with a Chinese affiliation; 118 (49%) addressed a topic in complementary and alternative medicine, such as acupuncture.
Conclusions: Cochrane reviewers rarely include Chinese databases in their literature searches. Further research should evaluate the consequences of this failure to search Chinese databases when performing systematic reviews.