Towards evidence based research

Lund, Hans; Brunnhuber, Klara; Juhl, Carsten Bogh; Robinson, Karen A.; Leenaars, Marlies; Dorch, Bertil F.; Jamtvedt, Gro; Nortvedt, Monica Wammen; Christensen, Robin; Chalmers, Iain

doi:10.1136/bmj.i5440

Cited by 104 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) are key elements in both evidence-based healthcare [1] and evidence-based research [2] By synthesizing the available evidence, SRs support clinicians in making well-informed decisions about health care [3] and researchers in deciding which topics are the most relevant for new research [4]. When conducting SRs, it is essential to perform a comprehensive literature search to identify all published studies relevant to the research question as a failure to do so can result in selection bias and distort the conclusion of the review by potentially over- or underestimating of the treatment effect [3, 5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Self Cite

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: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, the authors believe the outcome of this paper to be representative of the lack of research on raw feeds and feeding, rather than it being related to the specificity of the literature search strategy. This Knowledge Summary clearly highlights a gap in the evidence, therefore a strong justification (Lund et al, 2016) for further research is present. The authors therefore recommend original research in the form of a randomised controlled study into dental health and complementary raw feeding is undertaken while keeping risks to humans caused by feed hygiene issues (van Bree et al).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 87%

In Dogs Does Feeding Raw Dietary Treats Reduce or Prevent Periodontal Disease?

Veggel

Oxley²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PICO question In Dogs Does Feeding Raw Dietary Treats Reduce or Prevent Periodontal Disease?Clinical bottom line Considering the weak evidence on raw bones and lack of evidence on other types of raw treats, veterinarians and veterinary nurses should be cautious when recommending raw treats to support periodontal health in dogs. Additionally, they should advise clients accordingly by relying on their clinical experience rather than the literature until more and better quality evidence is generated. <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access" /> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed" />

show abstract

“…existing knowledge clearly highlights a gap in the evidence, a strong justification for further research is present (Lund et al, 2016). The authors therefore recommend original research into dental health and complete raw feeding is undertaken.…”

Section: Clinical Bottom Linementioning

confidence: 96%

In Dogs with Periodontal Disease Is Feeding a Complete Raw Meat Diet More Effective Than a Complete Kibble 'Dental' Diet at Reducing Periodontal Disease?

Veggel

Armstrong²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In light of the absence of evidence, vets and vet nurses should be cautious when recommending raw diets to support periodontal health and advise clients accordingly by relying on their clinical experience rather than the literature until more evidence is generated. <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access" /> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed" />

show abstract

Towards evidence based research

Cited by 104 publications

References 37 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?

In Dogs Does Feeding Raw Dietary Treats Reduce or Prevent Periodontal Disease?

In Dogs with Periodontal Disease Is Feeding a Complete Raw Meat Diet More Effective Than a Complete Kibble 'Dental' Diet at Reducing Periodontal Disease?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About