Search

Background: A high-quality electronic search is essential for ensuring accuracy and comprehensiveness among the records retrieved when conducting systematic reviews. Therefore, we aimed to identify the most efficient method for searching in both MEDLINE (through PubMed) and EMBASE, covering search terms with variant spellings, direct and indirect orders, and associations with MeSH and EMTREE terms (or lack thereof)., Design and Setting: Experimental study. UNESP, Brazil., Methods: We selected and analyzed 37 search strategies that had specifically been developed for the field of anesthesiology. These search strategies were adapted in order to cover all potentially relevant search terms, with regard to variant spellings and direct and indirect orders, in the most efficient manner., Results: When the strategies included variant spellings and direct and indirect orders, these adapted versions of the search strategies selected retrieved the same number of search results in MEDLINE (mean of 61.3%) and a higher number in EMBASE (mean of 63.9%) in the sample analyzed. The numbers of results retrieved through the searches analyzed here were not identical with and without associated use of MeSH and EMTREE terms. However, association of these terms from both controlled vocabularies retrieved a larger number of records than did the use of either one of them., Conclusions: In view of these results, we recommend that the search terms used should include both preferred and non-preferred terms (i.e. variant spellings and direct/indirect order of the same term) and associated MeSH and EMTREE terms, in order to develop highly-sensitive search strategies for systematic reviews.

Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative condition that has genetic susceptibility, aging, and exposure to certain chemicals as risk factors. In recent decades, epidemiological and experimental studies have investigated the role of pesticides in the development of PD, in particular that of the herbicide paraquat. Here, we, therefore, aim to systematically review the association between paraquat exposure and PD., Methods: Observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional) eligible for this systematic review will enroll any participant who was occupationally and/or environmentally exposed to paraquat. Experimental studies, including in vivo and in vitro assays designed to assess neurotoxicological endpoints or mechanisms of paraquat neurotoxicity, will also be eligible. Outcomes of interest include the following: PD diagnosis; neurobehavioral, biochemical, and/or morphological alterations; and cellular, biochemical, and/or molecular pathways to oxidative stress. Using terms to include all forms of paraquat combined with PD, the following electronic databases will be searched: PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Toxnet, and Web of Science, without restrictions as to language, year, or status of publication. A team of reviewers will independently select potential titles and abstracts, extract data, assess risk of bias, and determine the overall quality of evidence for each outcome using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) approach for systematic reviews and evidence integration. Dichotomous data will be summarized as odds ratios, and continuous data will be given as mean differences, both with their respective 95% confidence intervals., Discussion: This is the first time that the OHAT systematic review protocol will be applied to investigate a possible causal association between exposure to paraquat and PD. Results from this study could serve as basis for regulatory agencies to define paraquat levels of concern, supporting its risk assessment process., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016050861.

Background: A high-quality electronic search is essential in ensuring accuracy and completeness in retrieved records for the conducting of a systematic review., Objective: We analysed the available sample of search strategies to identify the best method for searching in Medline through PubMed, considering the use or not of parenthesis, double quotation marks, truncation and use of a simple search or search history., Methods: In our cross-sectional study of search strategies, we selected and analysed the available searches performed during evidence-based medicine classes and in systematic reviews conducted in the Botucatu Medical School, UNESP, Brazil., Results: We analysed 120 search strategies. With regard to the use of phrase searches with parenthesis, there was no difference between the results with and without parenthesis and simple searches or search history tools in 100% of the sample analysed (P = 1.0). The number of results retrieved by the searches analysed was smaller using double quotations marks and using truncation compared with the standard strategy (P = 0.04 and P = 0.08, respectively)., Conclusions: There is no need to use phrase-searching parenthesis to retrieve studies; however, we recommend the use of double quotation marks when an investigator attempts to retrieve articles in which a term appears to be exactly the same as what was proposed in the search form. Furthermore, we do not recommend the use of truncation in search strategies in the Medline via PubMed. Although the results of simple searches or search history tools were the same, we recommend using the latter.

Rationale and Aim: The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased., Methods: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups., Results: We analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%., Conclusion: Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)