Database selection and data gathering methods in systematic reviews on qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus - An explorative study

Abstract

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered one of the most reliable types of studies in evidence-based medicine. This relies on a comprehensive and systematic search by choosing ideal data gathering methods including selection of databases. The aim of this study was to investigate which combination of databases results in the highest recall of references when conducting SRs on qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the current use of databases and the importance of other sources for data collection. Methods 23 SRs (published between the year 2010 and 2019) on qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus were located through searching PubMed and met the inclusion criteria. Data, including number of databases searched, names of databases, use of additional data sources and use of information specialists were collected for each SR. The SRs concluded a total of 459 unique, qualitative references on diabetes mellitus. These references were systematically hand searched in the five most searched databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and PubMed. Results The SRs searched four databases on average (range two to eight). CINAHL was the most searched database, (19 of the 23 SRs). Two SRs mentioned the involvement of an information specialist and 16 of 23 (70%) SRs searched reference lists of included references, which on average resulted in 16% more references being included. A total of 36 (8%) references were found only in one of the five databases, with CINAHL retrieving the highest number of unique references. Searching the combination of the three databases PubMed, Embase and CINAHL resulted in an overall recall rate of 99.3%, while adding PsycINFO increased overall recall to 99.8%. Conclusions We recommend combining the searches of CINAHL, PubMed, Embase and PsychINFO, and to involve an information specialist to ensure high recall rates, when conducting SRs on qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus. Especially CINAHL is highly relevant and important to use when searching for qualitative research.

Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: A scoping review

“…Our scoping review has several limitations. First, we did not consider articles that were at preprint status at the time of study selection, 84 which would have led to the inclusion of further studies, 85 nor did we exhaustively search for unpublished studies. Second, during the work on this review, we became aware of “bibliographic coupling” as a relevant term that was missing from our search strategy, which possibly led to the omission of eligible articles and should be reconsidered for updates of this review.…”

Occupational Disease and Injury in Malaysia: A Thematic Review of Literature from 2016 to 2021

“…In thematic review, the minimum number of databases required is at least two of the most common databases such as PubMed and Scopus [25]. Te fnal search was conducted on 8 September 2021.…”

Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: a scoping review

“…Our scoping review has several limitations. First, we did not consider articles that were at preprint status at the time of study selection 84 which would have led to the inclusion of further studies. 85 Second, during the work on this review, we became aware of "bibliographic coupling" as a relevant term that was missing from our search strategy, which possibly led to the omission of eligible articles and should be reconsidered for updates of this review.…”