Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study.

IF 2 4区医学 Q2 REHABILITATION

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Pub Date : 2022-12-19 DOI:10.1186/s12998-022-00468-8

Martin Nørregård Eybye, Simon Dyrløv Madsen, Anders Nikolai Ørsted Schultz, Casper Glissmann Nim

{"title":"Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study.","authors":"Martin Nørregård Eybye, Simon Dyrløv Madsen, Anders Nikolai Ørsted Schultz, Casper Glissmann Nim","doi":"10.1186/s12998-022-00468-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general. This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT.Methods: SRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs.Results: Eighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%.Conclusions: For SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance.","PeriodicalId":48572,"journal":{"name":"Chiropractic & Manual Therapies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9764566/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chiropractic & Manual Therapies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00468-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general. This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT.

Methods: SRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs.

Results: Eighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%.

Conclusions: For SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance.

查看原文本刊更多论文

有关脊柱手法治疗的数据库覆盖范围及其在系统综述中的应用：一项探索性研究。

背景：随机对照试验（RCT）的系统综述（SR）被认为是最可靠的研究类型之一。通过系统而全面的文献检索，研究人员旨在收集与其目的相关的所有研究。数据库的选择具有挑战性，取决于感兴趣的主题。Cochrane 手册》建议至少检索以下三个数据库：Cochrane 图书馆、MEDLINE 和 EMBASE。然而，这对于一般的肌肉骨骼领域的综述来说并不总是足够的。本研究旨在考察脊柱手法治疗（SMT）综述中研究人员使用数据库的频率和选择。其次，分析研究报告中包含的 RCTs，以确定对脊柱手法疗法研究报告进行有效文献检索所需的最佳数据库组合：方法：通过在 PubMed 和 Epistemonikos（截至 2022 年 2 月 25 日检索日期的所有条目）中进行检索，确定了研究 SMT 对患者报告的任何结果测量的影响的 SR。对于每个 SR，均收集了所搜索的数据库和纳入的 RCT。在九个数据库（Cochrane Library、MEDLINE/PubMed、EMBASE、Google Scholar、CINAHL、Web of Science、Index to Chiropractic Literature、PEDro 和 AMED）中分别检索了 RCT。用数据库或数据库组合检索到的 RCT 数量除以 RCT 总数计算覆盖率：符合纳入标准的 SR 有 85 篇，检索到的 RCT 有 442 项。检索次数最多的数据库是 MEDLINE/PubMed。Cochrane 图书馆的总体覆盖率最高，包含的 RCT 数量位居第三。虽然不可能实现 100% 的检索率，因为在九个数据库中的任何一个中都无法检索到 18 项 RCT，但 Cochrane 图书馆、Google Scholar 和 PEDro 的组合检索了所有可能的 RCT，综合覆盖率为 95.9%：对于有关 SMT 的 SR，我们建议使用《Cochrane 手册》建议的 Cochrane 图书馆、MEDLINE/PubMed、Embase 的组合，以及 PEDro 和脊骨神经医学文献索引。此外，还可将谷歌学术作为搜索灰色文献和保证质量的工具。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Medicine-Complementary and Alternative Medicine

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

15.80%

发文量

审稿时长

20 weeks

期刊介绍： Chiropractic & Manual Therapies publishes manuscripts on all aspects of evidence-based information that is clinically relevant to chiropractors, manual therapists and related health care professionals. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies is an open access journal that aims to provide chiropractors, manual therapists and related health professionals with clinically relevant, evidence-based information. Chiropractic and other manual therapies share a relatively broad diagnostic practice and treatment scope, emphasizing the structure and function of the body''s musculoskeletal framework (especially the spine). The practices of chiropractic and manual therapies are closely associated with treatments including manipulation, which is a key intervention. The range of services provided can also include massage, mobilisation, physical therapies, dry needling, lifestyle and dietary counselling, plus a variety of other associated therapeutic and rehabilitation approaches. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies continues to serve as a critical resource in this field, and as an open access publication, is more readily available to practitioners, researchers and clinicians worldwide.