Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:55:11.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VALUE OF DATABASES OTHER THAN MEDLINE FOR RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2014

Diane L. Lorenzetti ,
Leigh-Ann Topfer ,
Liz Dennett Open the ORCID record for Liz Dennett [Opens in a new window]  and
Fiona Clement
Diane L. Lorenzetti
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health Sciences, Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary and the Institute of Health Economics
Leigh-Ann Topfer
Affiliation:
Health Technology & Policy Unit, School of Public Health, University of Alberta
Liz Dennett
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics and JWS Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta
Fiona Clement
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health Sciences, Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore the degree to which databases other than MEDLINE contribute studies relevant for inclusion in rapid health technology assessments (HTA).

Methods: We determined the extent to which the clinical, economic, and social studies included in twenty-one full and four rapid HTAs published by three Canadian HTA agencies from 2007 to 2012 were indexed in MEDLINE. Other electronic databases, including EMBASE, were then searched, in sequence, to assess whether or not they indexed studies not found in MEDLINE. Assessment topics ranged from purely clinical (e.g., drug-eluting stents) to those with broader social implications (e.g., spousal violence).

Results: MEDLINE contributed the majority of studies in all but two HTA reports, indexing a mean of 89.6 percent of clinical studies across all HTAs, and 88.3 percent of all clinical, economic, and social studies in twenty-four of twenty-five HTAs. While EMBASE contributed unique studies to twenty-two of twenty-five HTAs, three rapid HTAs did not include any EMBASE studies. In some instances, PsycINFO and CINAHL contributed as many, if not more, non-MEDLINE studies than EMBASE.

Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of assessing the topic-specific relative value of including EMBASE, or more specialized databases, in HTA search protocols. Although MEDLINE continues to be a key resource for HTAs, the time and resource limitations inherent in the production of rapid HTAs require that researchers carefully consider the value and limitations of other information sources to identify relevant studies.

Keywords

DatabasesBibliographicInformation storage & retrievalMEDLINEResearch designTechnology assessmentBiomedical
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 173 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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. Facey, K. Glossary. International network of agencies for health technology assessment 2006. http://www.inahta.org/Glossary/ (accessed August 15, 2013).Google Scholar
2. Hailey, D, Corabian, P, Harstall, C, Schneider, W. The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:651–656.Google Scholar
3. Hailey, D. A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:415–418.Google Scholar
4. Menon, D, Stafinski, T. Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 2):S14–19.Google Scholar
5. Ganann, R, Ciliska, D, Thomas, H. Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Khangura, S, Konnyu, K, Cushman, R, et al. Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Harker, J, Kleijnen, J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10:397–410.Google Scholar
8. Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133–139.Google Scholar
9. Bahaadinbeigy, K, Yogesan, K, Wootton, R. MEDLINE versus EMBASE and CINAHL for telemedicine searches. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16:916–919.Google Scholar
10. Betran, AP, Say, L, Gulmezoglu, AM, et al. Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: Experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Egger, M, Juni, P, Bartlett, C, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Lemeshow, AR, Blum, RE, Berlin, JA, et al. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:867–873.Google Scholar
13. Parkhill, AF, Clavisi, O, Pattuwage, L, et al. Searches for evidence mapping: Effective, shorter, cheaper. J Med Libr Assoc. 2011;99:157–160.Google Scholar
14. Royle, P, Milne, R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: Rapid versus exhaustive searches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:591–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Royle, P, Waugh, N. A simplified search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials for systematic reviews of health care interventions: A comparison with more exhaustive strategies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:23.Google Scholar
16. Royle, PL, Bain, L, Waugh, NR. Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes. Diabet Med. 2005;22:1386–1393.Google Scholar
17. Sampson, M, Barrowman, NJ, Moher, D, et al. Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:943–955.Google Scholar
18. Slobogean, GP, Verma, A, Giustini, D, et al. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1261–1267.Google Scholar
19. Stevinson, C, Lawlor, DA. Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: Added value or diminishing returns? Complement Ther Med. 2004;12:228–232.Google Scholar
20. Subirana, M, Sola, I, Garcia, JM, et al. A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:20–25.Google Scholar
21. Glanville, J, Paisley, S. Identifying economic evaluations for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:436–440.Google Scholar
22. Sampson, M, Tetzlaff, J, Urquhart, C. Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:119–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Topfer, LA, Parada, A, Menon, D, et al. Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:297–303.Google Scholar
24. Leclercq, E. Indexing of a clinical paper by EMBASE and MEDLINE. CILIP Health Libr Group Newsletter. 2005;22:10–13.Google Scholar
25. Sampson, M, Zhang, L, Morrison, A, et al. An alternative to the hand searching gold standard: Validating methodological search filters using relative recall. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:33.Google Scholar
26. Hoogendam, A, de Vries Robbe, PF, Stalenhoef, AF, Overbeke, AJ. Evaluation of PubMed filters used for evidence-based searching: Validation using relative recall. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009;97:186–193.Google Scholar
27. Key MEDLINE indicators. US National Library of Medicine 2012. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/bsd_key.html (accessed August 16, 2013).Google Scholar
28. Ware, M, Mabe, M. The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, 3rd ed. The Netherlands: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2012.Google Scholar
29. Cochrane Collaboration. Glossary. Cochrane Collaboration 2014. www.cochrane.org/glossary/ (accessed August 13, 2013).Google Scholar