MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses

Slobogean, Gerard P.; Verma, Ashim; Giustini, Dean; Slobogean, Bronwyn; Mulpuri, Kishore

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.013

Cited by 56 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, Whitehouse et al compared the use of Medline, Google scholar, and EMBASE regarding publication rates of orthopaedic hip abstracts presented at international meetings and found that Medline and Google scholar identified significantly more publications than EMBASE [16]. Furthermore, Slobogean et al examined the searches of abstracts and studies used in orthopaedic meta-analyses among various databases including Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science, and reported positive search rates of 90% and 81% when using Medline and EMBASE respectively [15]. Combining Medline and EMBASE increased the positive yield to 91%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Rates of Presentations at an Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Donegan

Kim

Lee

2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

141

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Rates of Presentations at an Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Donegan

Kim

Lee

2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

141

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, only English language papers were used and the search was limited to the Cochrane databases, Medline, and EMBASE. Although some recommend including other databases, a recent publication [45] examining meta-analyses in orthopaedics suggests that searching the Cochrane databases, Medline, and EMBASE provides a 97% recall rate and that expansion to Web of Science or Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature does not improve the recall rate. Second, the analysis is based solely on nonrandomized studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Femoral or Salter Innominate Osteotomies Improve Femoral Head Sphericity in Legg-Calvé-Perthes Disease? A Meta-analysis

Saran

Varghese

Mulpuri

2012

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Recently, the authors of two prospective multicenter observational studies recommended surgery to improve head sphericity in older children, whereas large retrospective observational studies suggest that surgery does not improve head sphericity in older children. Thus, the treatment for Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease (LCPD) remains controversial. Questions/purposes Using a meta-analysis we asked whether femoral varus osteotomy (FVO) or Salter innominate osteotomy (SIO) resulted in better radiographic head sphericity at the end of the disease process as compared with nonsurgical modalities. Methods We systematically searched the literature using the key concepts LCPD, operative treatment, and nonoperative treatment. Of 160 abstracts, 57 full-text studies were reviewed and 14 papers chosen for meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the impact of age and stage of disease. The odds of a spherical head after operative compared with nonoperative treatment were calculated to measure effect size for each study and a pooled odds ratio (OR) calculated. Results Head sphericity improved (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.60) by FVO or SIO as compared with patients treated nonoperatively. In children younger than 6 years, it did not alter femoral head sphericity (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36); children 6 years of age and older were more likely to have better femoral head sphericity from surgical treatment than nonoperative treatment (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.28-3.26). Conclusions The data suggest FVO or SIO in patients with LCPD disease who are older than 6 years of age during or before the fragmentation phase should be considered. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

show abstract

“…MEDLINE made a similarly high contribution to a systematic review of diabetes epidemiology, accounting for 94% of references (Royle, Bain, & Waugh, 2005). Combining MEDLINE with several other medical databases achieved 90% recall in breast cancer (Lemeshow, Blum, Berlin, Stoto, & Colditz, 2005), 100% in nursing studies (Subirana, Sola, Garcia, Gich, & Urrutia, 2005), and 97% in orthopaedics (Slobogean, Verma, Giustini, Slobogean, & Mulpuri, 2009). Booth (2010) has suggested that MEDLINE consistently delivers up to 80% of the relevant references in health technology assessments.…”

Section: Multidisciplinary Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

The Contributions of MEDLINE, Other Bibliographic Databases and Various Search Techniques to NICE Public Health Guidance

Levay

Raynor

Tuvey

2015

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective -To make recommendations for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on the factors to consider when choosing databases and search techniques when producing systematic reviews to support public health guidance development.Methods -Retrospective analysis of how the publications included in systematic reviews commissioned by NICE on obesity, spatial planning, and tuberculosis were retrieved. The Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2015, 10.1 51 included publications were checked to see if they were found from searching MEDLINE, another database or through other search techniques.Results -MEDLINE contributed 24.2% of the publications included in the obesity review, none of the publications in the spatial planning review and 72% of those in the tuberculosis review. Other databases accounted for 9.1% of included publications in obesity, 20% in spatial planning and 4% in tuberculosis. Non-database methods provided 42.4% of the included publications in the obesity review, compared to 5% in the spatial planning review and 24% in the tuberculosis review. It was not possible to establish retrospectively how 24.2% of the publications in the obesity review and 75% in the spatial planning review were found.Conclusions -Topic-specific databases and non-database search techniques were useful for tailoring the resources to the review questions. The value of MEDLINE in these reviews was affected by the degree of overlap with clinical topics, the domain of public health, and the need to find grey literature. The factors that NICE considers when planning a systematic search are the multidisciplinary nature of public health and the different types of evidence required.

show abstract

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses

Cited by 56 publications

References 24 publications

Publication Rates of Presentations at an Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Publication Rates of Presentations at an Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Do Femoral or Salter Innominate Osteotomies Improve Femoral Head Sphericity in Legg-Calvé-Perthes Disease? A Meta-analysis

The Contributions of MEDLINE, Other Bibliographic Databases and Various Search Techniques to NICE Public Health Guidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About