Optimizing the literature search: coverage of included references in systematic reviews in Medline and Embase.

IF 2.9 4区医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Journal of the Medical Library Association Pub Date : 2023-04-21 DOI:10.5195/jmla.2023.1482

Marita Heintz, Gyri Hval, Ragnhild Agathe Tornes, Nataliya Byelyey, Elisabet Hafstad, Gunn Eva Næss, Miriam Bakkeli

{"title":"Optimizing the literature search: coverage of included references in systematic reviews in Medline and Embase.","authors":"Marita Heintz, Gyri Hval, Ragnhild Agathe Tornes, Nataliya Byelyey, Elisabet Hafstad, Gunn Eva Næss, Miriam Bakkeli","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2023.1482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate if the included references in a set of completed systematic reviews are indexed in Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase, and how many references would be missed if we were to constrict our literature searches to one of these sources, or the two databases in combination.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study where we searched for each included reference (n = 4,709) in 274 reviews produced by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health to find out if the references were indexed in the respective databases. The data was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet where we calculated the indexing rate. The reviews were sorted into eight categories to see if the indexing rate differs from subject to subject.Results: The indexing rate in MEDLINE (86.6%) was slightly lower than in Embase (88.2%). Without the MEDLINE records in Embase, the indexing rate in Embase was 71.8%. The highest indexing rate was achieved by combining both databases (90.2%). The indexing rate was highest in the category \"Physical health - treatment\" (97.4%). The category \"Welfare\" had the lowest indexing rate (58.9%).Conclusion: Our data reveals that 9.8% of the references are not indexed in either database. Furthermore, in 5% of the reviews, the indexing rate was 50% or lower.","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10259622/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1482","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate if the included references in a set of completed systematic reviews are indexed in Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase, and how many references would be missed if we were to constrict our literature searches to one of these sources, or the two databases in combination.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study where we searched for each included reference (n = 4,709) in 274 reviews produced by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health to find out if the references were indexed in the respective databases. The data was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet where we calculated the indexing rate. The reviews were sorted into eight categories to see if the indexing rate differs from subject to subject.

Results: The indexing rate in MEDLINE (86.6%) was slightly lower than in Embase (88.2%). Without the MEDLINE records in Embase, the indexing rate in Embase was 71.8%. The highest indexing rate was achieved by combining both databases (90.2%). The indexing rate was highest in the category "Physical health - treatment" (97.4%). The category "Welfare" had the lowest indexing rate (58.9%).

Conclusion: Our data reveals that 9.8% of the references are not indexed in either database. Furthermore, in 5% of the reviews, the indexing rate was 50% or lower.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

优化文献检索:Medline和Embase系统综述中纳入参考文献的覆盖范围。

目的:本研究的目的是探讨一组已完成的系统综述中纳入的文献是否在Ovid MEDLINE和Ovid Embase中被索引，以及如果我们将文献检索限制在这两个数据库中的一个或两个数据库的组合中，会遗漏多少文献。方法:我们进行了一项横断面研究，在挪威公共卫生研究所发表的274篇综述中检索每一篇纳入的文献(n = 4,709)，以确定这些文献是否在各自的数据库中被索引。数据记录在Excel电子表格中，我们计算了索引率。这些评论被分成八类，以观察不同主题的索引率是否不同。结果:MEDLINE检索率为86.6%，Embase检索率为88.2%;Embase中没有MEDLINE记录，Embase的标引率为71.8%。合并两种数据库的检索率最高(90.2%)。索引率最高的类别是“身体健康-治疗”(97.4%)。“福利”类别的索引率最低(58.9%)。结论:我们的数据显示，9.8%的文献在两个数据库中均未被索引。此外，在5%的评论中，索引率为50%或更低。

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

Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

4.10

自引率

10.00%

发文量

审稿时长

26 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.