Cited by 47Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchHealth Sciences Research and Education

Can we prioritise which databases to search? A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management

Open access
Beyer, Fiona R., Wright, Kath·2013·Health Information & Libraries Journal

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews risk producing biased conclusions if a comprehensive search to identify eligible studies is not undertaken, but little evidence exists to guide prioritisation of databases to search when resources are limited. Objectives: A systematic review examining interventions for managing frozen shoulder (adhesive capsulitis) was used to investigate the performance of bibliographic databases in identifying the included studies, the smallest combination of databases required to retrieve all included studies, and the performance of the searches themselves. Methods: We calculated the yield of included studies from each of 15 databases, and the recall and precision of each search strategy. We investigated differences between the presence of a record in a database and its retrieval. Results: Thirty of 31 studies were present in at least one database. Yields of individual databases ranged from 0% to 90% (median 23%). Two combinations of databases identified all 30 studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Science Citation Index (SCI); or CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Pre MEDLINE. Conclusions: In a systematic review of a range of interventions used to manage frozen shoulder, at least two databases and reference checking were required to retrieve all included studies, but searching for future reviews should not be restricted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hir.12009

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Investigators and information specialists searching for a systematic review are generally advised to search multiple databases and to use additional methods to identify all relevant literature.

    “Investigators and information specialists searching for relevant references for a systematic review (SR) are generally advised to search multiple databases and to use additional methods to be able to adequately identify all literature related to the topic of interest [1–6].”
  • When conducting exhaustive searches for systematic reviews, information professionals search multiple databases with overlapping content.

    “When conducting exhaustive searches for systematic reviews, information professionals search multiple databases with overlapping content [1-4].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E. & Glanville, J. Chapter 6: searching for studies. In: Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collab- oration, 2011. Accessible at: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
  2. Wies, J. A pilot randomised placebo controlled trial of oste- opathic and physiotherapy treatment for frozen shoulder. Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 2003, 6, 40.
  3. Yan, F. [Comparison of dumbbell gymnastics and bare- handed exercise in ameliorating the symptoms of shoulder periarthritis]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation 2005, 9, 187-189.
  4. Maricar, N. N. & Chok, B. A comparison of the effect of man- ual therapy with exercise therapy and exercise therapy alone for stiff shoulders. Physiotherapy Singapore 1999, 2, 99-104.
  5. Takagishi, K., Saito, A., Segawa, K., Takahira, N. & Itomitu, S. Evaluation of intra-articular injection in patients with so-called Gojyukata: comparison hyaluronate and steroid. Japan Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences 1996, 35, 377-381.
  6. © 2012 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2012 Health Libraries Group Health Information & Libraries Journal, 30, pp. 49-58

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beyer, F. R., & Wright, K.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Beyer, Fiona R.
Venue
Health Information & Libraries Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-12-12
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
49-58
ISSN
  • 1471-1834 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-1842
OpenAlex
W2112924292
Cited by
47
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Information & Libraries Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
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
bibliographic database searching, frozen shoulder, systematic review search strategy, Central, MEDLINE, reference checking
MeSH terms
Bursitis, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, MEDLINE

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