Identifying Systematic Reviews of Adverse Effects
Author Information
Author(s): Golder Su, McIntosh Heather M, Loke Yoon
Primary Institution: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York
Hypothesis
Can systematic reviews of adverse effects be identified quickly and easily in major databases?
Conclusion
Searching major databases for systematic reviews of adverse effects is more challenging than expected due to inconsistent terminology and inadequate indexing.
Supporting Evidence
- Out of 3635 records screened, 257 met the inclusion criteria.
- The precision of searches in CDSR was low, ranging from 0% to 3%.
- Hand searching identified additional relevant systematic reviews that were missed by the search strategies.
Takeaway
The study tried to find reviews about the bad effects of treatments but found it really hard because the words used to describe them were all mixed up.
Methodology
The study involved searching DARE and CDSR databases for systematic reviews published from 1994 to 2005, using various search strategies.
Limitations
The study was limited to CDSR and DARE, which may not include all systematic reviews, and the low number of reviews in CDSR limited analysis.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website