Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:50:16.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION SOURCES FOR ADVERSE EFFECTS DATA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2012

Su Golder  and
Yoon K. Loke
Su Golder
Affiliation:
University of York email: [email protected]
Yoon K. Loke
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to determine the relative value and contribution of searching different sources to identify adverse effects data.

Methods: The process of updating a systematic review and meta-analysis of thiazolidinedione-related fractures in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was used as a case study. For each source searched, a record was made for each relevant reference included in the review noting whether it was retrieved with the search strategy used and whether it was available but not retrieved. The sensitivity, precision, and number needed to read from searching each source and from different combinations of sources were also calculated.

Results: There were 58 relevant references which presented sufficient numerical data to be included in a meta-analysis of fractures and bone mineral density. The highest number of relevant references were retrieved from Science Citation Index (SCI) (35), followed by BIOSIS Previews (27) and EMBASE (24). The precision of the searches varied from 0.88% (Scirus) to 41.67% (CENTRAL). With the search strategies used, the minimum combination of sources required to retrieve all the relevant references was; the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) website, Science Citation Index (SCI), EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, British Library Direct, Medscape DrugInfo, handsearching and reference checking, AHFS First, and Thomson Reuters Integrity or Conference Papers Index (CPI).

Conclusions: In order to identify all the relevant references for this case study a number of different sources needed to be searched. The minimum combination of sources required to identify all the relevant references did not include MEDLINE

Keywords

Adverse effectsAdverse drug reactionsSystematic reviewsSearch strategiesFracturesThiazolidinediones
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 133 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Golder, S, Loke, Y, McIntosh, HM. Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Golder, S, Loke, Y, McIntosh, HM. Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:440–448.Google Scholar
3.Golder, S, Loke, Y. Sources of information on adverse effects: A systematic review. Health Info Libr J. 2010;27:176–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Jansen, BJ. How are we searching the World Wide Web? A comparison of nine search engine transaction logs. Inf Process Manage. 2006;42:248–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Loke, YK, Singh, S, Furberg, CD. Long-term use of thiazolidinediones and fractures in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2008;180:32–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Tanon, A, Champagne, F, Contandriopoulos, AP, et al. . Patient safety and systematic reviews: Finding papers indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:452–461Google ScholarPubMed
7.Watlington, A. iProspect survey confirms internet users ignore web sites without top search engine rankings. iProspect. 2006.Google Scholar
8.Zwicky, R. Search engine referral rates by page in serps. Eightfold Logic Blog. 2008.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Golder and Loke supplementary material

Supplementary tables 1-6

Download Golder and Loke supplementary material(File)
File 176.6 KB