Cited by 62Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchHealth Sciences Research and Education

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses

Slobogean, Gerard P., Verma, Ashim, Giustini, Dean, Slobogean, Bronwyn L., Mulpuri, Kishore·2009·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective To test the hypothesis that all primary studies used in orthopedic meta-analyses are indexed in MEDLINE or EMBASE.Study design and setting Using MEDLINE from 1995 to 2005, we retrieved all published meta-analyses of orthopedic surgical interventions. The primary studies in each meta-analysis were defined as the "gold standard" set. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for each primary study, and a recall rate was calculated. Secondary searches were performed using Web of Science (WoS), the Cochrane databases, and CINAHL.Results High recall rates were achieved searching MEDLINE (90%) and EMBASE (81%) for the gold standard set, and the combined search retrieved 91%. Titles not indexed by MEDLINE or EMBASE included 45 abstracts, eight journal articles, and three unpublished studies. Searching the Cochrane databases yielded 36 titles not in MEDLINE or EMBASE. Using all three databases produced 97% recall of the primary studies; WoS and CINAHL did not increase the recall rate.Conclusions These results suggest that a very high percentage of primary research in orthopedics can be found using the major databases. Additional database searches are unlikely to increase the yield of published manuscripts; however, conference proceedings and journal supplements should still be searched to ensure that relevant remaining reports are identified.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.013

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Slobogean, G. P., Verma, A., Giustini, D., Slobogean, B. L., & Mulpuri, K.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Slobogean, Gerard P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-12
Volume
62
Issue
12
Pages
1261-1267
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2070452757
Cited by
62
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, primary research, literature searching, journal supplements, unpublished research
MeSH terms
Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bibliometrics, Databases, Bibliographic, MEDLINE, Information Storage and Retrieval, Orthopedic Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review