Search

Background: Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews. Methods: Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. For each published systematic review, we extracted the references of the included studies. Using the prospectively recorded results and the studies included in the publications, we calculated recall, precision, and number needed to read for single databases and databases in combination. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall. Results: A total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. Sixteen percent of the included references (291 articles) were only found in a single database; Embase produced the most unique references (n = 132). The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. Conclusions: Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It remains unclear into which level the systolic blood pressure (SBP) should be lowered in order to provide the best cardiovascular protection among older people. Hypertension guidelines recommendation on attaining SBP levels <150 mmHg in this population is currently based on experts' opinion. To clarify this issue, we systematically reviewed and quantified available evidence on the impact of achieving different SBP levels <150 mmHg on various adverse outcomes in subjects aged ≥60 years old receiving antihypertensive drug treatment.Methods: We searched 8 databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and post-hoc analyses or subanalyses of RCTs reporting the effects of attaining different SBP levels <150 mmHg on the risk of stroke, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality in participants aged ≥60 years. We performed random-effects meta-analyses stratified by study design.Results: Eleven studies (> 33,600 participants) were included. Compared with attaining SBP levels ≥140 mmHg, levels of 130 to <140 mmHg were not associated with lower risk of outcomes in the meta-analysis of RCTs, whereas there was an associated reduction of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.99) in the meta-analysis of post-hoc analyses or subanalyses of RCTs. Limited and conflicting data were available for the SBP levels of <130 mmHg and 140 to <150 mmHg.Conclusions: Among older people, there is suggestive evidence that achieving SBP levels of 130 to <140 mmHg is associated with lower risks of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Future trials are required to confirm these findings and to provide additional evidence regarding the <130 and 140 to <150 mmHg SBP levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previously, we reported on the low recall of Google Scholar (GS) for systematic review (SR) searching. Here, we test our conclusions further in a prospective study by comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of SR search strategies previously performed in Embase, MEDLINE, and GS. Methods: The original search results from Embase and MEDLINE and the first 1000 results of GS for librarian-mediated SR searches were recorded. Once the inclusion-exclusion process for the resulting SR was complete, search results from all three databases were screened for the SR's included references. All three databases were then searched post hoc for included references not found in the original search results. Results: We checked 4795 included references from 120 SRs against the original search results. Coverage of GS was high (97.2 %) but marginally lower than Embase and MEDLINE combined (97.5 %). MEDLINE on its own achieved 92.3 % coverage. Total recall of Embase/MEDLINE combined was 81.6 % for all included references, compared to GS at 72.8 % and MEDLINE alone at 72.6 %. However, only 46.4 % of the included references were among the downloadable first 1000 references in GS. When examining data for each SR, the traditional databases' recall was better than GS, even when taking into account included references listed beyond the first 1000 search results. Finally, precision of the first 1000 references of GS is comparable to searches in Embase and MEDLINE combined. Conclusions: Although overall coverage and recall of GS are high for many searches, the database does not achieve full coverage as some researchers found in previous research. Further, being able to view only the first 1000 records in GS severely reduces its recall percentages. If GS would enable the browsing of records beyond the first 1000, its recall would increase but not sufficiently to be used alone in SR searching. Time needed to screen results would also increase considerably. These results support our assertion that neither GS nor one of the other databases investigated, is on its own, an acceptable database to support systematic review searching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gastrointestinal endoscopy plays a crucial role in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal disorders. When endoscopy is indicated during pregnancy, concerns about the effects on pregnancy outcome often arise. The aim of this study was to assess whether lower gastrointestinal endoscopies (LGEs) across all three trimesters of pregnancy affects pregnancy outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using Embase (including MEDLINE), Medline OvidSP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web-of-Science, Google scholar and Pubmed. All original research articles from 1990 until May 2014 involving pregnant women who underwent LGE for any indication were included. Adverse pregnancy events like spontaneous abortion, preterm birth and fetal demise were assessed for a temporal and etiological relation with the LGE. Results: In total, 5514 references were screened by two independent reviewers. Eighty-two references met the inclusion criteria and were selected. Two retrospective, controlled studies, one uncontrolled study and 79 case reports were identified. In the three studies, birth outcomes did not differ between women undergoing LGE during pregnancy, compared to women that had an indication for LGE but in whom LGE was not performed because of pregnancy. In 79 case reports, 92 patients are described who underwent 100 LGE's during pregnancy. LGEs performed in all trimesters (n = 32, 39 and 29) were both temporally and etiologically related to 1, 3 and 2 adverse events, respectively. Conclusion: Based on the available literature, this review concludes that lower gastrointestinal endoscopy during pregnancy is of low risk for mother and child in all three trimesters of pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Instability of the metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints of the lesser toes (digiti 2-5) is increasingly being treated by repair of the plantar plate (PP). This systematic review examines the anatomy of the plantar plate of the lesser toes, and the relation between the integrity of the plantar plates of the lesser toes and lesser MTP joint stability., Methods: The databases of Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Pubmed not medline, Cinahl (ebsco), ProQuest, Lilacs, Scielo and Google Scholar were searched in June 2015 from inception. Studies were included if they were in English, contained primary data, and had a focus on plantar plate anatomy of the lesser toes or on the relationship between integrity of the plantar plate and MTP joint (in)stability. Study characteristics were extracted into two main tables and descriptive anatomical and histological data were summarized into one schematic 3D drawing of the plantar plate., Results: Nine studies were included in this systematic review, of which five addressed plantar plate anatomy as such and four focused directly and indirectly on plantar plate integrity related to MTP joint stability., Conclusion: This is the first systematic review regarding plantar plate anatomy related to MTP joint stability of the lesser toes. This review iterates the importance of plantar plate anatomy and integrity for MTP joint stability, and it delineates the lack of primary data regarding plantar plate anatomy of the lesser toes and MTP joint stability.

Background: The usefulness of Google Scholar (GS) as a bibliographic database for biomedical systematic review (SR) searching is a subject of current interest and debate in research circles. Recent research has suggested GS might even be used alone in SR searching. This assertion is challenged here by testing whether GS can locate all studies included in 21 previously published SRs. Second, it examines the recall of GS, taking into account the maximum number of items that can be viewed, and tests whether more complete searches created by an information specialist will improve recall compared to the searches used in the 21 published SRs., Methods: The authors identified 21 biomedical SRs that had used GS and PubMed as information sources and reported their use of identical, reproducible search strategies in both databases. These search strategies were rerun in GS and PubMed, and analyzed as to their coverage and recall. Efforts were made to improve searches that underperformed in each database., Results: GS' overall coverage was higher than PubMed (98% versus 91%) and overall recall is higher in GS: 80% of the references included in the 21 SRs were returned by the original searches in GS versus 68% in PubMed. Only 72% of the included references could be used as they were listed among the first 1,000 hits (the maximum number shown). Practical precision (the number of included references retrieved in the first 1,000, divided by 1,000) was on average 1.9%, which is only slightly lower than in other published SRs. Improving searches with the lowest recall resulted in an increase in recall from 48% to 66% in GS and, in PubMed, from 60% to 85%., Conclusions: Although its coverage and precision are acceptable, GS, because of its incomplete recall, should not be used as a single source in SR searching. A specialized, curated medical database such as PubMed provides experienced searchers with tools and functionality that help improve recall, and numerous options in order to optimize precision. Searches for SRs should be performed by experienced searchers creating searches that maximize recall for as many databases as deemed necessary by the search expert.