Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate if the included references in a set of completed systematic reviews are indexed in Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase, and how many references would be missed if we were to constrict our literature searches to one of these sources, or the two databases in combination. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study where we searched for each included reference (n = 4,709) in 274 reviews produced by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health to find out if the references were indexed in the respective databases. The data was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet where we calculated the indexing rate. The reviews were sorted into eight categories to see if the indexing rate differs from subject to subject. Results: The indexing rate in MEDLINE (86.6%) was slightly lower than in Embase (88.2%).  Without the MEDLINE records in Embase, the indexing rate in Embase was 71.8%. The highest indexing rate was achieved by combining both databases (90.2%). The indexing rate was highest in the category "Physical health - treatment" (97.4%). The category "Welfare" had the lowest indexing rate (58.9%). Conclusion: Our data reveals that 9.8% of the references are not indexed in either database. Furthermore, in 5% of the reviews, the indexing rate was 50% or lower.

Background Evidence synthesis organisations worldwide are trying to meet commissioners’ need for rapid responses to their evidence synthesis commissions. In this project we piloted an intensive process, working to complete an evidence synthesis within six-weeks, rather than the standard lead time of 4-6 months. There were three objectives: 1) To develop a plan for and conduct an evidence synthesis in six weeks or less (“intensive pilot”) 2) To register time used for the intensive pilot 3) To evaluate the intensive pilot process and identify barriers, facilitators, learning points, areas for improvement or future implementation ideas. Methods The two project teams divided the pilot into three phases: Pre-planning, planning and intensive. During the pre-planning phase commissions were identified and researchers were recruited. During the planning phase the team interacted with the commissioner, completed the evidence synthesis protocol, and planned how they were going to work together during the intensive phase. During the intensive phase the team implemented their plan and completed the evidence synthesis they were assigned. We held reflective meetings and kept evaluator notes throughout the process. Results The team was able to achieve the project objectives. They developed and implemented a plan for conducting an evidence synthesis in six weeks. They registered their times use. During the pilot process the team reflected on and evaluated the process itself to identify barriers, facilitators, learning points, areas for improvement or future implementation ideas. The involved researchers preferred working in this intensive way. They felt that time use was more effective, and they were more focused. However, there are implications for project leadership and implementation that should be considered before implementing an intensive approach in future evidence synthesis projects. Conclusions The involved researchers preferred working intensively with one evidence synthesis over being involved with many projects at the same time. They felt that time use was more effective, and they were able to complete the tasks in a focused way. However, there are several implications for project management, leadership and further implementation that should be considered before implementing an intensive approach in future evidence syntheses.