Using Embase as a supplement to PubMed in Cochrane reviews differed across fields.

OBJECTIVE: Medline/PubMed is often first choice for health science researchers when doing literature searches. However, Medline/PubMed does not cover the health science research literature equally well across specialties. Embase is often considered an important supplement to Medline/PubMed in health sciences. The present study analyzes the coverage of Embase as a supplement to PubMed, and the aim of the study is to investigate if searching Embase can compensate for low PubMed retrieval. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The population in this study is all the included studies in all Cochrane reviews from 2012 to 2016 across the 53 Cochrane groups. The analyses were performed using two units of analysis (study and publication). We are examining the coverage in Embase of publications and studies not covered by PubMed (25,119 publications and 9,420 studies). RESULTS: The results showed that using Embase as a supplement to PubMed resulted in a coverage of 66,994 publications out of 86,167 and a coverage rate of 77.7, 95% CI [75.05, 80.45] of all the included publications. Embase combined with PubMed covered 48,326 out of 54,901 studies and thus had a coverage rate of 88.0%, 95% CI [86.2, 89.9] of studies. The results also showed that supplementing PubMed with Embase increased coverage of included publications by 6.8 percentage points, and the coverage of studies increased by 5.5 percentage points. Substantial differences were found across and within review groups over time. CONCLUSION: The included publications and studies in some groups are covered considerably better by supplementing with Embase, whereas in other groups, the difference in coverage is negligible. However, due to the variation over time, one should be careful predicting the benefit from supplementing PubMed with Embase to retrieve relevant publications to include in a review.

PubMed coverage varied across specialties and over time: a large-scale study of included studies in Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVE: PubMed is one of the most commonly used search tools in biomedical and life sciences. Existing studies of database coverage generally conclude that searching PubMed may not be sufficient although some find that the contributions from other databases are modest at best. However, generalizability of the studies of the coverage of PubMed is typically restricted. The objective of this study is to analyze the coverage of PubMed across specialties and over time. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We use the more than 50,000 included studies in all Cochrane reviews published from 2012 to 2016 as our population and examine if the studies and resulting publications can be identified in PubMed. RESULTS: The results show that PubMed has a coverage of 70.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) (68.40, 73.30) of all the included publications and 82.8%, 95% CI (80.9, 84.7) of the included studies. There are huge differences in coverage across and within specialties. In addition, coverage varies within groups over time. CONCLUSION: Databases used for searching topics within the groups with highly varying or low coverage should be chosen with care as PubMed may have a relatively low coverage.

Hospital nurses' information retrieval behaviours in relation to evidence based nursing: a literature review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this literature review is to provide an overview of the information retrieval behaviour of clinical nurses, in terms of the use of databases and other information resources and their frequency of use. METHODS: Systematic searches carried out in five databases and handsearching were used to identify the studies from 2010 to 2016, with a populations, exposures and outcomes (PEO) search strategy, focusing on the question: In which databases or other information resources do hospital nurses search for evidence based information, and how often? RESULTS: Of 5272 titles retrieved based on the search strategy, only nine studies fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. The studies are from the United States, Canada, Taiwan and Nigeria. The results show that hospital nurses' primary choice of source for evidence based information is Google and peers, while bibliographic databases such as PubMed are secondary choices. Data on frequency are only included in four of the studies, and data are heterogenous. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for choosing Google and peers are primarily lack of time; lack of information; lack of retrieval skills; or lack of training in database searching. Only a few studies are published on clinical nurses' retrieval behaviours, and more studies are needed from Europe and Australia.

[Systematic search for qualitative literature can be reinforced].

Finding qualitative literature is challenging and time consuming which may pose problems, as the qualitative research constitutes a significant contribution to the understanding of different aspects of health and disease. The purpose of this article was to describe the challenges of locating qualitative studies and present strategies to overcome these challenges. The cost of retrieving all the relevant literature can be a considerable amount of irrelevant hits, and the searcher must decide at which point the results are satisfying.

[Embase is a central resource for literature search in health science].

PubMed is often first choice for searching health sciences literature. However, even though Embase tends to be overlooked it is an important supplement to PubMed. The present paper provides an overview of the literature dealing with the significance of using Embase for systematic reviews and metaanalyses. Furthermore, the differences in the coverage of the two databases are described and the search process in Embase is presented using examples.

Clinical utility of F-18 FDG PET-CT in the initial evaluation of lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is a resource-demanding imaging modality with increasing popularity in the workup of patients with suspected or proven lung cancer. METHODS: To review the clinical usefulness of this imaging modality in the diagnosis, staging, and pre-operative evaluation, we conducted a systematic literature search, review, and quality assessment using the rapid evidence assessment toolkit and the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine methodology. The literature search resulted in 4,208 records including 918 reviews, of which 139 met the predefined criteria and were read in full to identify relevant original articles on F-18 FDG PET-CT (1) in the evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodules (n = 14), (2) in curative-intent treatment trials (n = 9), and (3) in planning of invasive procedures (n = 18). RESULTS: We found the following important results from the literature review: 1) PET-CT can rule out malignancy in most solitary pulmonary nodules due to high sensitivity (recommendation level A). 2) PET-CT reduces the number of futile treatment trials (recommendation level A). 3) The sensitivity of PET-CT in general is insufficient to rule out mediastinal lymph node metastasis (recommendation level A). CONCLUSIONS: ᅟ 1) With few exceptions, solitary pulmonary nodules can safely be considered benign if the PET-CT scan is negative. Exceptions consist of small (<1 cm) and non-solid, solitary pulmonary nodules. These abnormalities should be followed up by CT in a structured programme. 2) No curative-intent treatment should be commenced until a PET-CT scan has excluded occult distant metastases. 3) In general, lymph node metastasis in the mediastinum cannot be ruled out on the basis of a negative PET-CT, and confirmative invasive staging should be performed in most patients before mediastinal metastasis is confirmed or ruled out.

FDG PET/CT in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations.

PURPOSE: The Region of Southern Denmark (RSD), covering 1.2 of Denmark's 5.6 million inhabitants, established a task force to (1) retrieve literature evidence for the clinical use of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and provide consequent recommendations and further to (2) compare the actual use of PET/CT in the RSD with these recommendations. This article summarizes the results. METHODS: A Work Group appointed a professional Subgroup which made Clinician Groups conduct literature reviews on six selected cancers responsible for 5,768 (62.6 %) of 9,213 PET/CT scans in the RSD in 2012. Rapid Evidence Assessment was applied, using the methodology of systematic reviews with predefined limitations to search PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English/Danish/Swedish/Norwegian since 2002. PICO questions were defined, data recorded and quality appraised and rated with regard to strength and evidence level. Consequent recommendations for applications of PET/CT were established. The actual use of PET/CT was compared with these, where grades A and B indicated "established" and "useful" and grades C and D "potentially useful" and "non-recommendable" indications, respectively. RESULTS: Of 11,729 citations, 1,729 were considered for review, and 204 were included. The evidence suggested usefulness of PET/CT in lung, lymphoma, melanoma, head and neck, and colorectal cancers, whereas evidence was sparse in gynaecological cancers. The agreement between actual use of PET/CT and literature-based recommendations was high in the first five mentioned cancers in that 96.2 % of scans were made for grade A or B indications versus only 22.2 % in gynaecological cancers. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based usefulness was reported in five of six selected cancers; evidence was sparse in the sixth, gynaecological cancers. Actual use of PET/CT agreed well with recommendations.

HOSPITAL MANAGERS' NEED FOR INFORMATION ON HEALTH TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in implementing hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) as a tool to facilitate decision making based on a systematic and multidisciplinary assessment of evidence. However, the decision-making process, including the informational needs of hospital decision makers, is not well described. The objective was to review empirical studies analysing the information that hospital decision makers need when deciding about health technology (HT) investments. METHODS: A systematic review of empirical studies published in English or Danish from 2000 to 2012 was carried out. The literature was assessed by two reviewers working independently. The identified informational needs were assessed with regard to their agreement with the nine domains of EUnetHTA's Core Model. RESULTS: A total of 2,689 articles were identified and assessed. The review process resulted in 14 relevant studies containing 74 types of information that hospital decision makers found relevant. In addition to information covered by the Core Model, other types of information dealing with political and strategic aspects were identified. The most frequently mentioned types of information in the literature related to clinical, economic and political/strategic aspects. Legal, social, and ethical aspects were seldom considered most important. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital decision makers are able to describe their information needs when deciding on HT investments. The different types of information were not of equal importance to hospital decision makers, however, and full agreement between EUnetHTA's Core Model and the hospital decision-makers' informational needs was not observed. They also need information on political and strategic aspects not covered by the Core Model.

[A guide to obtain validity and reproducibility in systematic reviews].

Validity and reproducibility are key concepts in the execution and reporting of the literature searches underlying a systematic review as it enables the reader to assess the quality of the performed searches. However, often the reporting of searches is lacking crucial information. This article provides guidelines for the process from development of a search protocol to quality assessment of the retrieved literature in order to obtain validity and reproducibility. The concepts of recall and precision are introduced to enable quality assessment of the literature searches.