CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Sciences Research and Educationscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study

Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Klerings, Irma, Wagner, Gernot, Heise, Thomas L., Dobrescu, Andreea I., Armijo-Olivo, Susan, Stratil, Jan M., Persad, Emma +6 more·2018·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To assess the effects of abbreviated literature searches on evidence syntheses conclusions.Study design and setting We randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews of clinical interventions and repeated literature searches using 14 abbreviated approaches (combinations of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with and without searches of reference lists). If abbreviated searches missed included studies, we recalculated meta-analyses. Cochrane authors determined whether the new evidence base would change conclusions. We assessed the noninferiority of abbreviated searches allowing for a maximum of 10% changed conclusions.Results We conducted 840 abbreviated literature searches. Noninferiority varied based on the definition of "changed conclusion". When the reduction of the certainty of a conclusion was of concern, all abbreviated searches were inferior. Searching Embase only rendered the greatest proportion of changed conclusions (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%-40%); combining MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with searches of references lists the lowest (8%, 95% CI 3%-18%). When falsely reaching an opposite conclusion was of concern, combining one database with another or with searches of reference lists was noninferior to comprehensive searches (2%, 95% CI: 0%-9%).Conclusion If decision-makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high certainty require comprehensive searches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022

Cites

99 of 99 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Klerings, I., Wagner, G., Heise, T. L., Dobrescu, A. I., Armijo-Olivo, S., Stratil, J. M., Persad, E., Lhachimi, S. K., Van Noord, M. G., Mittermayr, T., Zeeb, H., Hemkens, L., & Gartlehner, G.
Affiliations
  • Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
  • University of Bremen (DE)
  • Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timișoara (RO)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH (AT)
  • Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS (DE)
  • University of Basel (CH)
Corresponding author
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
102
Pages
1-11
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022
OpenAlex
W2806693647
Cited by
72
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of California, San Francisco
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
systematic review search strategy, MEDLINE, Embase, Central, meta-epidemiology, rapid evidence synthesis
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Time Factors, Selection Bias, Epidemiologic Studies

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