Article type
Abstract
"Background
Searches for systematic reviews should be exhaustive and conducted in multiple databases in order to minimize publication and selection bias, systematic reviews in social care are no exceptions. In general, there is little guidance on which databases, or combination of databases, that should be used when conducting systematic reviews in social care. Lack of guidance cause uncertainty in the selection of databases. As a consequence, a larger number of databases is used within social care in comparison to other topics such as medicine.
Searching multiple databases is time consuming and subscribing to multiple databases is expensive. Therefore, it is in the interest of every organization conducting systematic reviews to know which databases that have the highest coverage of research and if any database is redundant.
Objectives
The aim is to investigate which databases index studies included in a set of systematic reviews within social care. We also aim to identify the minimum number of databases needed to find all included studies. If possible, we will report on database coverage for specific subgroups within social care.
Methods
We will compile a set of gold standard studies. The gold standard will consist of studies included in systematic reviews and HTA-reports in social care published by the Campbell Collaboration and SBU. Each study in the gold standard set will be searched in a selected set of databases. This information, as well as a calculation of the indexing rate for each database, will be recorded in an Excel spreadsheet.
Results
We will present the indexing rate for each individual database as well as the optimal combination of databases needed to achieve 100% sensitivity.
Conclusions
This project will add to the existing knowledge on which databases to use in systematic review literature searches within social care.
Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement:
None.
"
Searches for systematic reviews should be exhaustive and conducted in multiple databases in order to minimize publication and selection bias, systematic reviews in social care are no exceptions. In general, there is little guidance on which databases, or combination of databases, that should be used when conducting systematic reviews in social care. Lack of guidance cause uncertainty in the selection of databases. As a consequence, a larger number of databases is used within social care in comparison to other topics such as medicine.
Searching multiple databases is time consuming and subscribing to multiple databases is expensive. Therefore, it is in the interest of every organization conducting systematic reviews to know which databases that have the highest coverage of research and if any database is redundant.
Objectives
The aim is to investigate which databases index studies included in a set of systematic reviews within social care. We also aim to identify the minimum number of databases needed to find all included studies. If possible, we will report on database coverage for specific subgroups within social care.
Methods
We will compile a set of gold standard studies. The gold standard will consist of studies included in systematic reviews and HTA-reports in social care published by the Campbell Collaboration and SBU. Each study in the gold standard set will be searched in a selected set of databases. This information, as well as a calculation of the indexing rate for each database, will be recorded in an Excel spreadsheet.
Results
We will present the indexing rate for each individual database as well as the optimal combination of databases needed to achieve 100% sensitivity.
Conclusions
This project will add to the existing knowledge on which databases to use in systematic review literature searches within social care.
Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement:
None.
"