Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
As part of a NIHR programme grant we are conducting a Cochrane Review of tailored interventions for people with COPD and comorbidities. The review topic was prioritised by our patient steering group. The review will include both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and qualitative studies. Our literature search of multiple databases yielded thousands of results. So that our time could be directed as efficiently as possible, we wanted to find out which databases the included studies were retrieved from to help us decide which sources to continue searching.
Objectives:
For a mixed-methods review on interventions for people with COPD and multi-morbidities including both RCTs and qualitative studies we aimed to: analyse which databases the included studies were found in; identify the overall coverage of each database; identify which databases contained unique studies.
Methods:
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Airways Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; Web of Science Core Collection; ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO ICTRP. Searches were conducted in June 2019. We ran separate searches to identify RCTs and qualitative studies. We searched all sources for both sets of searches.
Following the initial screen and study selection we used the search summary table format proposed by Bethel to record which database each study came from, calculate the overall coverage of each database, and identify any unique studies. We only checked for the retrieval of the primary publication, not for any additional publications related to the study.
Results:
We found 17 RCTs and 6 qualitative studies for inclusion. The number of databases an RCT report was found in ranged from 1 to 6. CENTRAL had the highest overall coverage with 88% (n=15) included studies. We did not find any of our included studies in CINAHL. We found unique studies in CENTRAL (N=4); Cochrane Airways Trials Register (n=1); and Embase (n=1). For qualitative studies, the number of databases in which we found a report ranged from 1 to 5. Embase had the highest overall coverage with 100% (n=6) of our included studies. We did not find any of the included studies in ClinicalTrials.gov or the WHO ICTRP. We found unique studies in Embase (n=1).
Conclusions:
We found differences in the best sources for retrieval of RCT reports and qualitative study reports. CENTRAL performed very well for retrieving reports of RCTs. All of our included qualitative studies were found in Embase. We will use the information in the search summary table to streamline the number of databases to search for future updates. We will continue to update the search summary table each time we re-run our searches for this review.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
The review was prioritised by a patient steering group.
As part of a NIHR programme grant we are conducting a Cochrane Review of tailored interventions for people with COPD and comorbidities. The review topic was prioritised by our patient steering group. The review will include both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and qualitative studies. Our literature search of multiple databases yielded thousands of results. So that our time could be directed as efficiently as possible, we wanted to find out which databases the included studies were retrieved from to help us decide which sources to continue searching.
Objectives:
For a mixed-methods review on interventions for people with COPD and multi-morbidities including both RCTs and qualitative studies we aimed to: analyse which databases the included studies were found in; identify the overall coverage of each database; identify which databases contained unique studies.
Methods:
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Airways Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; Web of Science Core Collection; ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO ICTRP. Searches were conducted in June 2019. We ran separate searches to identify RCTs and qualitative studies. We searched all sources for both sets of searches.
Following the initial screen and study selection we used the search summary table format proposed by Bethel to record which database each study came from, calculate the overall coverage of each database, and identify any unique studies. We only checked for the retrieval of the primary publication, not for any additional publications related to the study.
Results:
We found 17 RCTs and 6 qualitative studies for inclusion. The number of databases an RCT report was found in ranged from 1 to 6. CENTRAL had the highest overall coverage with 88% (n=15) included studies. We did not find any of our included studies in CINAHL. We found unique studies in CENTRAL (N=4); Cochrane Airways Trials Register (n=1); and Embase (n=1). For qualitative studies, the number of databases in which we found a report ranged from 1 to 5. Embase had the highest overall coverage with 100% (n=6) of our included studies. We did not find any of the included studies in ClinicalTrials.gov or the WHO ICTRP. We found unique studies in Embase (n=1).
Conclusions:
We found differences in the best sources for retrieval of RCT reports and qualitative study reports. CENTRAL performed very well for retrieving reports of RCTs. All of our included qualitative studies were found in Embase. We will use the information in the search summary table to streamline the number of databases to search for future updates. We will continue to update the search summary table each time we re-run our searches for this review.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
The review was prioritised by a patient steering group.