BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) are an important source of information about healthcare interventions. A key component of a well-conducted SR is a comprehensive literature search. There is limited evidence on the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies, and dissertations and their impact on results of meta-analyses.MethodsOur sample included SRs from three Cochrane Review Groups: Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI), Infectious Diseases (ID), Developmental Psychosocial and Learning Problems (DPLP) (n = 129). Outcomes included: 1) proportion of reviews that searched for and included each study type; 2) proportion of relevant studies represented by each study type; and 3) impact on results and conclusions of the primary meta-analysis for each study type.ResultsMost SRs searched for non-English studies; however, these were included in only 12% of reviews and represented less than 5% of included studies. There was a change in results in only four reviews (total sample = 129); in two cases the change did not have an impact on the statistical or clinical significance of results. Most SRs searched for unpublished studies but the majority did not include these (only 6%) and they represented 2% of included studies. In most cases the impact of including unpublished studies was small; a substantial impact was observed in one case that relied solely on unpublished data. Few reviews in ARI (9%) and ID (3%) searched for dissertations compared to 65% in DPLP. Overall, dissertations were included in only nine SRs and represented less than 2% of included studies. In the majority of cases the change in results was negligible or small; in the case where a large change was noted, the estimate was more conservative without dissertations.ConclusionsThe majority of SRs searched for non-English and unpublished studies; however, these represented a small proportion of included studies and rarely impacted the results and conclusions of the review. Inclusion of these study types may have an impact in situations where there are few relevant studies, or where there are questionable vested interests in the published literature. We found substantial variation in whether SRs searched for dissertations; in most reviews that included dissertations, these had little impact on results.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0347-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundOne of the best sources for high quality information about healthcare interventions is a systematic review. A well-conducted systematic review includes a comprehensive literature search. There is limited empiric evidence to guide the extent of searching, in particular the number of electronic databases that should be searched. We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative analysis to examine the potential impact of selective database searching on results of meta-analyses.MethodsOur sample included systematic reviews (SRs) with at least one meta-analysis from three Cochrane Review Groups: Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI), Infectious Diseases (ID), Developmental Psychosocial and Learning Problems (DPLP) (n = 129). Outcomes included: 1) proportion of relevant studies indexed in each of 10 databases; and 2) changes in results and statistical significance of primary meta-analysis for studies identified in Medline only and in Medline plus each of the other databases.ResultsDue to variation across topics, we present results by group (ARI n = 57, ID n = 38, DPLP n = 34). For ARI, identification of relevant studies was highest for Medline (85 %) and Embase (80 %). Restricting meta-analyses to trials that appeared in Medline + Embase yielded fewest changes in statistical significance: 53/55 meta-analyses showed no change. Point estimates changed in 12 cases; in 7 the change was less than 20 %. For ID, yield was highest for Medline (92 %), Embase (81 %), and BIOSIS (67 %). Restricting meta-analyses to trials that appeared in Medline + BIOSIS yielded fewest changes with 1 meta-analysis changing in statistical significance. Point estimates changed in 8 of 31 meta-analyses; change less than 20 % in all cases. For DPLP, identification of relevant studies was highest for Medline (75 %) and Embase (62 %). Restricting meta-analyses to trials that appeared in Medline + PsycINFO resulted in only one change in significance. Point estimates changed for 13 of 33 meta-analyses; less than 20 % in 9 cases.ConclusionsMajority of relevant studies can be found within a limited number of databases. Results of meta-analyses based on the majority of studies did not differ in most cases. There were very few cases of changes in statistical significance. Effect estimates changed in a minority of meta-analyses but in most the change was small. Results did not change in a systematic manner (i.e., regularly over- or underestimating treatment effects), suggesting that selective searching may not introduce bias in terms of effect estimates.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0232-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Parents wish to reduce their child's pain during medical procedures but may not know how to do so. We systematically reviewed the literature on parents' experiences and information needs related to managing their child's pain for common medical procedures. Of 2678 records retrieved through database searching, 5 were included. Three additional records were identified by scanning reference lists. Five studies were qualitative, and 3 were quantitative. Most took place in North America or Europe (n = 7) and described neonatal intensive care unit experiences (n = 5). Procedures included needle-related medical procedures (eg, venipuncture, phlebotomy, intravenous insertion), sutures, and wound repair and treatment, among others. Generally, parents desired being present during procedures, wanted to remain stoic for their child, and thought that information would be empowering and relieve stress but felt unsupported in taking an active role. Supporting and educating parents may empower them to lessen pain for their children while undergoing medical procedures.

BackgroundChildren experience multiple painful procedures when being cared for in emergency departments (EDs). Unfortunately, evidence-based interventions to manage such pain and distress are under-utilized across EDs. Caregivers are uniquely positioned and invested to advocate for the adaptation of such evidence into practice. Our objective was to gather information from caregivers of children experiencing procedural pain in the ED to inform the development of a novel, caregiver-focused knowledge translation (KT) tool.MethodsThe study design was qualitative description. Caregivers of children who underwent intravenous (IV) insertion or venipuncture in the pediatric ED at an urban tertiary care centre were interviewed. Thematic analysis was applied to the data. The TRanslating Emergency Knowledge for Kids (TREKK) Parent Advisory Group continuously informed this study, and provided input on interview guide development and piloting, data collection, analysis of the data, interpretation of the results, and development of next steps.ResultsInterviews revealed four major themes: 1) source of healthcare information; 2) delivering healthcare information; 3) communication with caregivers; and 4) procedure-related anxiety and long-term effects. Caregivers most valued receiving information directly from their healthcare provider. They also expressed that healthcare providers should direct information about the procedure to their child and identified strategies to involve children in their care. Caregivers wanted to be empowered to ask informed questions of their healthcare providers. Finally, caregivers reported negative experiences with procedures for their children, occurring mainly at non-pediatric centres.ConclusionsWe have identified core information needs for caregivers whose children are experiencing IV insertion or venipuncture. These results will form the foundation for the development of a KT tool that may empower caregivers to actively participate in their child’s healthcare.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12887-018-1300-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Fathers are resourceful parents who compel a critical re-examination towards advances in father-friendly practices.