Searching for religion and mental health studies required health, social science, and grey literature databases

Wright, Judy; Cottrell, David; Mir, Ghazala

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.02.017

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, they concluded that to fully capture the complete body of available literature on other subjects might require searching multiple databases [20]. This is strongly supported by a number of other studies [8–13, 15, 16, 18–22, 33, 66–78]. Studies evaluating this question within the musculoskeletal field make the same conclusion: searching more than one database is necessary [14, 17, 23, 32, 79–81].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews – are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders?

Aagaard

Lund

Juhl

2016

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWhen conducting systematic reviews, it is essential to perform a comprehensive literature search to identify all published studies relevant to the specific research question. The Cochrane Collaborations Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidelines state that searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL should be considered mandatory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MECIR recommendations to use MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined, and examine the yield of using these to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the area of musculoskeletal disorders.MethodsData sources were systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group, including at least five RCTs, reporting a search history, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and adding reference- and hand-searching. Additional databases were deemed eligible if they indexed RCTs, were in English and used in more than three of the systematic reviews. Relative recall was calculated as the number of studies identified by the literature search divided by the number of eligible studies i.e. included studies in the individual systematic reviews. Finally, cumulative median recall was calculated for MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined followed by the databases yielding additional studies.ResultsDeemed eligible was twenty-three systematic reviews and the databases included other than MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was AMED, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, MANTIS, OT-Seeker, PEDro, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, SportDISCUS and Web of Science. Cumulative median recall for combined searching in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was 88.9% and increased to 90.9% when adding 10 additional databases.ConclusionSearching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was not sufficient for identifying all effect studies on musculoskeletal disorders, but additional ten databases did only increase the median recall by 2%. It is possible that searching databases is not sufficient to identify all relevant references, and that reviewers must rely upon additional sources in their literature search. However further research is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews – are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders?

Aagaard

Lund

Juhl

2016

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An evaluation of databases for use in Mental Health and religion reviews informed our selection of databases (Wright et al, 2014). Our sources included a range of health, social science and grey literature databases, and all were searched from inception: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Global Health, HMIC, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest Conference Papers Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Sociological Abstracts, ArabPsyNet, FRANCIS, Controlledtrials.com.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Faith-adapted psychological therapies for depression and anxiety: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Anderson

Heywood-Everett

Siddiqi

et al. 2015

Journal of Affective Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Incorporating faith (religious or spiritual) perspectives into psychological treatments has attracted significant interest in recent years. However, previous suggestion that good psychiatric care should include spiritual components has provoked controversy. To try to address ongoing uncertainty in this field we present a systematic review and metaanalysis to assess the efficacy of faith-based adaptations of bona fide psychological therapies for depression or anxiety.

show abstract

“…Locating grey literature can often be challenging, requiring librarians to utilize a number of databases from various host providers or various websites, some of which they may not be familiar with or aware of. Additionally, searchers may need to spend time learning various search interfaces and the nuances of each resource, such as how to download references or if the search query boxes have term limits ( Wright, Cottrell, & Mir, 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grey Literature Searching for Health Sciences Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Study of Time Spent and Resources Utilized

Saleh¹,

Ratajeski²,

Bertolet³

2014

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-To identify estimates of time taken to search grey literature in support of health sciences systematic reviews and to identify searcher or systematic review characteristics that may impact resource selection or time spent searching.Methods-A survey was electronically distributed to searchers embarking on a new systematic review. Characteristics of the searcher and systematic review were collected along with time spent searching and what resources were searched. Time and resources were tabulated and resources were categorized as grey or non-grey. Data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests.Results-Out of 81 original respondents, 21% followed through with completion of the surveys in their entirety. The median time spent searching all resources was 471 minutes, and of those a median of 85 minutes were spent searching grey literature. The median number of resources used in a systematic review search was four and the median number of grey literature sources searched was two. The amount of time spent searching was influenced by whether the systematic review was grant funded. Additionally, the number of resources searched was impacted by institution type and whether systematic review training was received.Conclusions-This study characterized the amount of time for conducting systematic review searches including searching the grey literature, in addition to the number and types of resources used. This may aid searchers in planning their time, along with providing benchmark information

show abstract

Searching for religion and mental health studies required health, social science, and grey literature databases

Cited by 17 publications

References 15 publications

Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews – are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders?

Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews – are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders?

Faith-adapted psychological therapies for depression and anxiety: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Grey Literature Searching for Health Sciences Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Study of Time Spent and Resources Utilized

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About