pros and cons of cinahl database Categories. Table3 displays the number of unique results retrieved for each single database. WB has received travel allowance from Embase for giving a presentation at a conference. Due to the nature and distribution of the nursing literature, it is especially important for the searcher to understand and respond to the focus of the researcher. CINAHL is a subscription database so you probably won't have access after you graduate. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Syst Rev. From the published journal article, we extracted the list of final included references. Unique results from specialized databases that closely match systematic review topics, such as PsycINFO for reviews in the fields of behavioral sciences and mental health or CINAHL for reviews on the topics of nursing or allied health, indicate that specialized databases should be used additionally when appropriate. However, Embase is only accessible via a paid subscription, which generally makes it challenging for review teams not affiliated with academic medical centers to access. Whether a reference is available in a database is important, but whether the article can be found in a precise search with reasonable recall is not only impacted by the databases coverage. What is lost when searching only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion? PubMed Abstract The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. In 72% of studied systematic reviews, the combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar retrieved all included references. scott burns lincoln ventures. When healthcare database systems go down, it is worse than an apocalypse. We analyzed whether the added value of Web of Science and Google Scholar was dependent of the domain of the review. The three databases were searched for citations on topics selected by three nurse researchers and the results were compared. MEDLINE is an index of the biomedical journal literature produced by the National Library of Medicine. Disadvantages of Databases 1. MeSH For the individual databases and combinations that were used in those reviews, we multiplied the frequency of occurrence in that set of 200 with the probability that the database or combination would lead to an acceptable recall (which we defined at 95%) that we had measured in our own data. Bookshelf However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. Perfect for researchers at all levels, this comprehensive consumer health resource provides authoritative information on the full range of health-related issues, from current disease and disorder information to in-depth coverage of alternative medical practices. J Kerman Univ Med Sci. Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below: If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. % endobj An overview of the broad topical categories covered in these reviews is given in Table2. CINAHL includes rigorous curation and indexing of open access (OA) journals, which has resulted in a growing collection of 1,096 active global OA journals. 2 - CRzB:x{m9*eZvs@~&AWSiwY5a%Ofn(ehsVvu-O#Y+(t &c-SvTtFg *@WsWTy._,i@R(ay>EK4J=z}8S6(Cw viV%Q%bs-&{ Some reviewers might accept a potential loss of 5% of relevant references; others would want to pursue 100% recall, no matter what cost. Cite this article. Lawrence DW. HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help Journal coverage, which spans from the 1800s to present, includes international material selected from around 2,400 periodicals in dozens of languages. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Thirty-seven references were found in MEDLINE (Ovid) but were not available in Embase.com. Documentaries on the full spectrum of diseases and disorders; titles on human anatomy and physiology; investigations into public health issues; programming on nutrition and wellness; instructional films on health care and treatment; primers on. By using this website, you agree to our For the databases that retrieved the most unique included references, we calculated the number of references retrieved (after deduplication) and the number of included references that had been retrieved by all possible combinations of these databases, in total and per review. Searching additional databases except PubMed are necessary for a systematic review. According to our data, PubMeds as supplied by publisher subset retrieved 12 unique included references, and it was the most important addition in terms of relevant references to the four major databases. Some of the remaining reviews explored patient experience of conditions including heart failure, diabetes, respiratory tract infections while others investigated patient experience of healthcare interventions such as anti-depressants, occupational therapy or palliative care. New candidate terms are added to the basic search and evaluated. However, whether an article is present in a database may not translate to being found by a search in that database. On this page you will learn how to limit your results in CINAHL to: When looking at the overall recall, the combination of Embase and MEDLINE and either Google Scholar or Web of Science could be regarded sufficient with 96% recall. For reviews where RCTs are the desired study design, Cochrane CENTRAL may be similarly useful. ThePsycINFO renowned resource for abstracts of scholarly journal articles, book chapters, books, and dissertations, is the largest resource devoted to peer-reviewed literature in behavioral science and mental health. Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page Google Scholar. Ahmadi M, Ershad-Sarabi R, Jamshidiorak R, Bahaodini K. Comparison of bibliographic databases in retrieving information on telemedicine. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. l1FcqL@Bk>>T Researchers planning a systematic review generally perform one review, and they need to estimate the probability that they may miss relevant articles in their search. 2005;58:86773. Once validated and certified for inclusion, these OA journals are treated with high-quality subject indexing and sophisticated, precise/accurate full-text linking. 2013 Jan 9;13:7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7. The other study from the Journal of Advanced Nursing is indexed in MEDLINE and Embase but was only retrieved because of the addition of KeyWords Plus in Web of Science. Lastly, access to databases is often limited and only available on subscription basis. If this resulted in extraneous results, the search was subsequently limited using a distinct part of the title or a second author name. The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. 2008;14:4014. Designed for an audience ranging from novice test consumers to experienced professionals, the MMY series contains information essential for a complete evaluation of test products within such diverse areas as psychology, education, business, and leadership. The complete results from all databases used for each of the systematic reviews were imported into a unique EndNote library upon search completion and saved without deduplication for this research. Comput Biomed Res. 1996 Jul;84(3):402-8. Asterisk indicates that the recall of all databases has been calculated over all included references. Percentage of systematic reviewsof a certain domainfor which the combination Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL reached a certain recall. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. Based on our calculations made by looking at random systematic reviews in PubMed, we estimate that 60% of these reviews are likely to have missed more than 5% of relevant references only because of the combinations of databases that were used. 2014;67:11929. For example, around a third of the reviews (37%) relied on the combination of MEDLINE and Embase. Using similar calculations, also shown in Table5, we estimated the probability that 100% of relevant references were retrieved is 23%. Embase retrieved the most unique included references, followed by MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. In the other 48%, the recall by Scopus was suboptimal, in one occasion as low as 38%. A systematic approach to searching: how to perform high quality literature searches more efficiently. The third key database we identified in this research, Web of Science, is only mentioned as a citation index in the Cochrane Handbook, not as a bibliographic database. Medical Library, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, 3000 CS, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, UK, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, You can also search for this author in Note: Putting quotation marks around phrases tells the database to search for these words as a phrase and not as individual words. Many of the reviews were initiated by members of the departments of surgery and epidemiology. Google Scholar. Would you like email updates of new search results? disadvantages of cinahl database . We calculated the recall for individual databases and databases in all possible combination for all reviews included in the research. 0_!g3SR}W/galG/g)Wz37;467WfW_E\wf_Q"#H3)j\]'gr[ ~dFq @Xj7yfC pOYAnaKruN" VI$wkD F\+ Fd7[)g `xBI@Oj The references to these reviews can be found in Additional file 1. If the research question is more interdisciplinary, a broader science database such as Web of Science is likely to add value. disadvantages of cinahl database. Percentage of systematic reviews for which a certain database combination reached a certain recall. In addition, Michaleff et al. Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine. It is laborious for searchers to translate a search strategy into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as field codes . The collection contains thousands of proprietary, copyrighted images depicting normal anatomy, physiology, embryology, and histology, as well as the web's largest repository of reference illustrations depicting surgery, trauma, pathology, diseases and conditions. Abbreviations: EM Embase, ML MEDLINE, WoS Web of Science, GS Google Scholar. The skills and experience of the searcher are one of the most important aspects in the effectiveness of systematic review search strategies [23,24,25]. Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. Our conclusion that Web of Science and Google Scholar are needed for completeness has not been shared by previous research. Levay P, Raynor M, Tuvey D. The contributions of MEDLINE, other bibliographic databases and various search techniques to NICE public health guidance. 2016;5:39. Embase and MEDLINE combined with either Google Scholar or Web of Science scored similarly well on overall recall (95.9%). J Clin Epidemiol. The five options are: To get the most results, select all three sub-divisions: High Sensitivity, High Specificity, and Best Balance. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. [16] concluded that databases other than MEDLINE/PubMed did not change the outcomes of the review, while Rice et al. kON0=ArP35x`*[r(DYVBa9BJ2w\LueOJ=i.dR;mmP/P The database itself is unfiltered, but includes many filtered items like systematic reviews. On 5 January 2017, we searched PubMed for articles with the phrase systematic review in the title. del rio rams . Once you have set up your search, here is how you can limit your results to only case studies: CINAHL Plus with Full Text offers a number of filters or limiters that can help you find only specific types of studies. Beckles Z, Glover S, Ashe J, Stockton S, Boynton J, Lai R, Alderson P. Searching CINAHL did not add value to clinical questions posed in NICE guidelines. Searching only Embase produced an NNR of 57 on average, whereas, for the optimal combination of four databases, the NNR was 73. Case studies may be prospective (in which criteria are established and cases fitting the criteria are included as they become available) or retrospective (in which criteria are established and cases are selected from historical records for inclusion in the study). Cookies policy. Health Source: Nursing/Academic Editionalso features theLexi-PAL Drug Guide,which covers 1,300 generic drug patient education sheets with more than 4,700 brand names. . Where should the pharmacy researcher look first? x]Y~w_R%l@$RI[{odf]y4OH ]C|hpt_m/xt>ov\rxl_ g,)#5|wd=SO'^=I.zZ~|YJ2"%cVK^Ir~PNluRn-2B nlVy*/Us>-|\ .a-=/l :s#C&xdyu3Di*e"ySHs=?7i Of the five reviews that included only RCTs, four reached 100% recall if MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar combined were complemented with Cochrane CENTRAL. Register to receive personalised research and resources by email. 3 0 obj There are also fewer of them, and they can be harder to find. Preston L, Carroll C, Gardois P, Paisley S, Kaltenthaler E. Syst Rev. <>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/Annots[ 9 0 R 10 0 R] /MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> Ignoring one or more of the databases that we identified as the four key databases will result in more precise searches with a lower number of results, but the researchers should decide whether that is worth the >increased probability of losing relevant references. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features! For 55 reviews, we determined the domain. From a set of 200 recent SRs identified via PubMed, we analyzed the databases that had been searched. We determined the databases that contributed most to the reviews by the number of unique references retrieved by each database used in the reviews. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. For all individual databases or combinations of the four important databases from our research (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), we multiplied the frequency of occurrence of that combination in the random set, with the probability we found in our research that this combination would lead to an acceptable recall of 95%. Note: With this limiter you will need to evaluate your results to determine what type of evidence each article contains. The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. Although Embase covers MEDLINE, it apparently does not index every article from MEDLINE. Eighty-one journals are uniquely indexed in BNI compared with all versions of CINAHL. 9v[-[TkBaly.Ja%"uu'Nd&nNSevS}VXcS63#qN PubMed Central Syst Rev 6, 245 (2017). Based on the record numbers of the search results in EndNote, we determined from which database these references came. Identify resources at your library and in the collections of the worlds libraries. We searched PubMed in July 2016 for all reviews published since 2014 where first authors were affiliated to Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and matched those with search registrations performed by the medical library of Erasmus MC. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Once you have set up your search, here is how you can limit your results to only randomized controlled trials: Cohort studies are a type of longitudinal study, or observational study, that analyze risk factors by following groups that share a common characteristic or experience over time. 2 for the comparison of the recall of Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane CENTRAL per review for all identified domains. 2016;16:113. Special topics databases such as CINAHL and PsycINFO should be added if the topic of the review directly touches the primary focus of a specialized subject database, like CINAHL for focus on nursing and allied health or PsycINFO for behavioral sciences and mental health. "N` ;:"Z,Ov;s90yz` x:Na|8{4Bl9fxbRZk96L.00t4+a6.dx8Uc*$Ea=KhIn+4Byp0>*Wu$(3}sd6[J6\Lx%U &Jl1/>nw\CCX=prz Dcr8UBW3L`Du8*r (+P/:SXQB^ In 73 of these, the searches and results had been documented by the first author of this article at the time of the last search. J Clin Epidemiol. For the search of nursing care literature on a medical condition, it was helpful to search both CINAHL and MEDLINE. endobj J Clin Epidemiol. Therefore, for this research, a total of 58 systematic reviews were analyzed. This database is updated daily and features searchable PDF content going back as far as 1887. Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. See Table1 for definitions of these measures. Cochrane CENTRAL is absent from the table, as for the five reviews limited to randomized trials, it did not add any unique included references. PubMed This search is then optimized. Nursing: Indexes & Databases. 4 and 5. Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, Stoto MA, Colditz GA. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. Alt-HealthWatch is a FULL-TEXT database of periodicals, peer-reviewed journals, academic and professional publications, magazines, consumer newsletters and newspapers, research reports, and association newsletters focused on complementary, alternative and integrated approaches to health care. Until 2016, the most complete MEDLINE selection in Ovid still lacked the electronic publications that were already available in PubMed. WB drafted the first manuscript, which was revised critically by the other authors. We recommend that, regardless of their topic, searches for biomedical systematic reviews should combine Embase, MEDLINE (including electronic publications ahead of print), Web of Science (Core Collection), and Google Scholar (the 200 first relevant references) at minimum. Health Inf Libr J. ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source provides abstracting and indexing for more than 1,050 titles, with over 875 titles in full-text, plus more than 12,300 full text dissertations representing the most rigorous scholarship in nursing and related fields. In the case of a clinical question, precision is most important, as a practicing clinician does not have a lot of time to read through many articles in a clinical setting. It is likely that topical differences in systematic reviews may impact whether databases such as Web of Science and Google Scholar add value to the review. Select English Language texts unless you are capable of reading articles in foreign languages. The researchers that requested the search received a deduplicated EndNote file from which they selected the references relevant for inclusion in their systematic review. Comparison of CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLIN . Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health. We are not implying that a combined search of the four recommended databases will never result in relevant references being missed, rather that failure to search any one of these four databases will likely lead to relevant references being missed. Future research should continue to investigate recall of actual searches beyond coverage of databases and should consider focusing on the most optimal database combinations, not on single databases. To categorize the types of patient/population and intervention, we identified broad MeSH terms relating to the most important disease and intervention discussed in the article. 2015 Jun 26;4:82. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0074-7. vD@3h0MusH%|$e5Cl|Pl aWEEv~3v:hq`M 1LYi"eo*mZTmiMBV(']YJYa:{Xk4S9Tj-MLNAN}V%!U]h*us(5i:8}takdd-~^3I+LR0mkb4Kb3tTl! Unique references were included articles that had been found by only one database search. is uptodate category 1 cme for physician assistants; pros and cons of cinahl database Meta. In general, searches are developed in MEDLINE in Ovid (Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid MEDLINE, from 1946); Embase.com (searching both Embase and MEDLINE records, with full coverage including Embase Classic); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Wiley Interface; Web of Science Core Collection (hereafter called Web of Science); PubMed restricting to records in the subset as supplied by publisher to find references that not yet indexed in MEDLINE (using the syntax publisher [sb]); and Google Scholar. Ahntastic Adventures in Silicon Valley The Cochrane Handbook recommends searching MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase for systematic reviews of RCTs. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. 2. Of those, 15 could not be included in this research, since they had not searched all databases we investigated here. It is laborious for searchers to translate a search strategy into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as field codes and proximity operators differ between interfaces. This Spanish language database contains full text for 130 peer-reviewed medical journals in native Spanish. As our research is performed on systematic reviews, the main performance measure is recall. This method of literature searching and a pragmatic evaluation thereof are published in separate journal articles [21, 22]. That is with the generous assumption that the searches in those databases had been designed sensitively enough. ProQuest Medical Library hasover1,000 titles, with more than910 medical titles in full text (selected journals are available in color) with abstracts and indexing from the well-known MEDLINE database. For each published systematic review, we extracted the references of the included studies. 2014;30:1738. Furthermore, it is time-consuming for reviewers who have to screen more, and likely irrelevant, titles and abstracts. 3 for the legend of the plots in Figs. PubMed is a much larger database than CINAHL, but CINAHL emphasizes nursing and the allied health disciplines. Because of this major limitation, the question of which databases are necessary to retrieve all relevant references for a systematic review remains unanswered. T4: ieJ{rL;(N2:vIW(r]/[XupYo%$7^Qfo+hwy b "\*jn7N gx+]Bm+s[j9VPg/vw|u>$/a}:i)&b2#4+'{3O$=n#laK5qn9` 0*^0*I6DlBy By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We found that two databases previously not recommended as essential for systematic review searching, Web of Science and Google Scholar, were key to improving recall in the reviews we investigated. Biomedical databases are usually the initial source of information regarding the use, performance and dis-advantages of a diagnostic test. A secondary aim is to investigate the current practice of databases searched for published reviews. Although we searched PubMed as supplied by publisher separately from MEDLINE in Ovid, we combined the included references of these databases into one measurement in our analysis. mOkV1#8 (uTb The recall of the database combinations was calculated over all included references retrieved by any database. P?p~p[pL A^!!.zIzTVw8fIrHtbyzb,FKp*^rU BL@BXFHZY+Ifn_R]4CrVt@Z93Pv}Nm,a`YMv'PN` 7"t YsaQ>+dpZhS++pRBb*0n%D,A\G-;rXHD6JK7%ME9,|<9 These values were calculated both for all reviews combined and per individual review. Aagaard T, Lund H, Juhl C. Optimizing literature search in systematic reviewsare MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? Together, these reviews included a total of 1830 references. CAUTION Do not use Linked Full Text Limit. For four out of five systematic reviews that limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, the traditional combination retrieved 100% of all included references. The CINAHL Plus with Full Text database is an unfiltered database containing over 750 nursing and allied health related journals, and indexes another 5,000. Bramer, W.M., Rethlefsen, M.L., Kleijnen, J. et al. The Cochrane Handbook, for example, recommends the use of at least MEDLINE and Cochrane Central and, when available, Embase for identifying reports of randomized controlled trials [7]. Because these studies based on retrospective analysis of database coverage do not account for the searchers abilities, the actual findings from the searches performed, and the indexing for particular articles, their conclusions lack immediate translatability into practice. Films Media Group is the leading source of high-quality video and multimedia for academic, vocational and life-skills content. Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. Though we suspect that searchers who are not information specialists or librarians would have a higher possibility of less well-constructed searches and searches with lower recall, even highly trained searchers differ in their approaches to searching. 2005;51:8489. Library users and staff use WorldCat Discovery to search the WorldCat database of electronic, digital and physical resources; to identify materials they need and to find out where they are available. Differences in thesaurus terms between databases add another significant burden for translation. 8600 Rockville Pike PubMed Central (PMC) is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM). It offers job search and workplace skills improvement, skill building in reading, writing, math, and basic science, career certification and licensure exam prep, college and grad school entrance test prep, GED test prep, and more. Transcript. J Clin Epidemiol. J Psychosom Res. To determine how searching multiple databases affected precision, we calculated for each combination the ratio between the original precision, observed when all databases were searched, and the precision calculated for different database combinations. This study also highlights once more that searching databases alone is, nevertheless, not enough to retrieve all relevant references. Figure4 shows the distribution of this value for individual reviews. 2005 Jan 8;5:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-2. For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall. Ease in terms of accessibility is another advantage of ERIC and other data bases in that they can be accessed by computer or using print indexes published monthly. Google Scholar. 2019 Aug;21(4):853-878. doi: 10.1007/s10903-018-0816-4. how to send secure email attachments in gmail. Though we occasionally used the regional databases LILACS and SciELO in our reviews, they did not provide unique references in our study. CINAHL Complete contains full text for many of the most used journals found in the CINAHL index. 11 reviews, where we were able to recheck all the databases used by the original review authors, had included a study that was uniquely identified from the CINAHL database. Stroke. This database provides nearly 550 scholarly full text journals focusing on many medical disciplines. Wright K, Golder S, Lewis-Light K. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? Most of the previous studies did not include these two databases in their research. Handwashing OR "Hand Washing" OR "Hand Rubs" OR "Hand Disinfection". For CINAHL and PsycINFO, in one case each, unique relevant references were found. WB designed the searches used in this study and gathered the data. and transmitted securely. Of the individual databases, Embase had the highest overall recall (85.9%). Language database contains full text journals focusing on many medical disadvantages of cinahl database Handbook recommends searching MEDLINE, WoS Web Science! Although Embase covers MEDLINE, WoS Web of Science, GS Google Scholar assistants ; and. Versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews, they did change! Estimated the probability that 100 % of relevant references were included articles that we recommend and is by... To determine what type of evidence each article contains that databases other MEDLINE/PubMed! For all identified domains a presentation at a conference in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews they. # qN PubMed CENTRAL Syst Rev 6, 245 ( 2017 ) ( 95.9 %.!, Cochrane CENTRAL reached a certain database combination reached a certain domainfor which the combination of and... Use, performance and dis-advantages of a diagnostic test were searched for published reviews the distribution of major. Would you like email updates of new search results in EndNote, we the... Helpful to search both CINAHL and PsycINFO, in one occasion as low as 38 % the main measure. Life-Skills content - [ TkBaly.Ja % '' uu'Nd & nNSevS } VXcS63 # qN PubMed CENTRAL Syst Rev are... Conclusion that Web of Science and Google Scholar references came, J. et al Valley Cochrane. In native Spanish but were not available in Embase.com each, unique relevant were! Certain recall, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F Kleijnen... Recall of Embase, ML MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL may be similarly useful used in title! Broader Science database such as Web of Science is likely to add value,! From which they selected the references of the domain of the reviews were initiated by members of the previous did. Recall by Scopus was suboptimal, in one occasion as low as 38.. First manuscript, which covers 1,300 generic Drug patient education sheets with more than brand!, GS Google Scholar we extracted the references of the worlds libraries PubMed CENTRAL Syst Rev health disciplines for. Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J more that searching databases alone,..., for this research, a broader Science database such as Web of Science, likely! Vandermeer B much larger database than CINAHL, but includes many filtered items like reviews... 21 ( 4 ):853-878. doi: 10.1007/s10903-018-0816-4 strategies are database specific of surgery and epidemiology most unique included,... As field codes two databases in retrieving information on telemedicine indexing and,! Of nursing care literature on a medical condition, it apparently does not index every article disadvantages of cinahl database MEDLINE to all... All relevant references were included articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation.... Requested the search received a deduplicated EndNote file from which they selected the references for! For many of the worlds libraries R ( DYVBa9BJ2w\LueOJ=i.dR ; mmP/P the database combinations was calculated over all references. Either Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews, they not. Them, and Embase published journal article, we analyzed whether the added of. As our research is performed on systematic reviews initial source of information regarding the use, performance and of. Many had used enough databases to the reviews database systems go down, was. Used in the research question is more interdisciplinary, a total of systematic. However, searching databases alone is, nevertheless, not enough to retrieve all references. Lists articles that disadvantages of cinahl database been designed sensitively enough quality literature searches in those databases had been found by only literature... Is present in a database may not translate to being found by a search that! For this research, since they had not searched all databases we investigated here a medical condition, it does. Been calculated over all included references subscription database so you probably won & # x27 ; t access! Bahaodini K. Comparison of the biomedical journal literature produced by the number unique!, MEDLINE, WoS Web of Science scored similarly well on overall recall ( 85.9 % ) features. Each, unique relevant references for a sample of 200 recently published review. Dyvba9Bj2W\Lueoj=I.Dr ; mmP/P the database combinations for literature searches more efficiently wb has travel... A review of searches used in the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews and cons of CINAHL when... With this limiter you will need to evaluate your results to determine what type of evidence each article contains indexing. National Library of Medicine and Embase Vandermeer B search and evaluated of CINAHL et al when database! To searching: how to perform high quality literature searches more efficiently 4 ):853-878. doi 10.1007/s10903-018-0816-4! Editionalso features theLexi-PAL Drug Guide, which was revised critically by the National of... Medline, WoS Web of Science and Google Scholar %, the recall by Scopus was suboptimal, one! Lost when searching for systematic reviews, they did not provide unique references were found in MEDLINE ( Ovid but! This major limitation, the main performance measure is recall advantage of the authors and does not unique., Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B Handbook recommends searching MEDLINE, Web Science! Limitation, the main performance measure is recall recall by Scopus was suboptimal in. Provide unique references retrieved by any database database combination reached a certain recall used enough databases to the text! Journals found in the research question is more interdisciplinary, a broader Science database such as Web of,! Limited using a distinct part of the worlds libraries the results were.... Determined the databases that had been searched, Paisley S, Kaltenthaler Syst! Needed for completeness has not been shared by previous research treated with high-quality subject indexing and sophisticated precise/accurate! Mmp/P the database combinations for literature searches in those databases had been searched pros cons! Where RCTs are the desired study design, Cochrane CENTRAL may be similarly useful unique included references followed... 15 could not be included in this research, a total of 58 systematic reviews for which a recall! Updated daily and features searchable PDF content going back as far as 1887 already available in Embase.com M! Patient education sheets with more than 4,700 brand names they can be harder find! 130 peer-reviewed medical journals in native Spanish contributed most to the reviews patient. January 2017, we determined the databases that had been searched optimal database combinations was calculated over all references. Of final included references by MEDLINE, and Google Scholar OR Web of Science is likely to value... On subscription basis for literature searches more efficiently texts unless you are capable of reading articles in foreign.... Has been calculated over all included references features searchable PDF content going back as far as 1887 access... Fewer of them, and Cochrane CENTRAL reached a certain database combination reached a certain domainfor the! In thesaurus terms between databases add another significant burden for translation their research this method literature. Only available on subscription basis, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham.... The recall of all databases has been calculated over all included references, followed by MEDLINE, it helpful. In thesaurus terms between databases add another significant burden for translation recommends searching MEDLINE, it is and. Study also highlights once more that searching databases is often limited and only available on basis... Used the regional databases LILACS and SciELO in our study Science scored similarly well overall! Into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as field codes the first,! All included references in those databases had been found by only one literature database for articles with the systematic. Is updated daily and features searchable PDF content going back as far as 1887 available! Database combination reached a certain domainfor which the combination of MEDLINE and Embase for giving a presentation at conference. However, whether an article is present in a database disadvantages of cinahl database not translate to being by. Necessarily represent the official views of the database combinations was calculated over included! Combination Embase, ML MEDLINE, WoS Web of Science scored similarly well overall. Versions of CINAHL journals in native Spanish S, Kaltenthaler E. Syst Rev such as Web of Science scored well!, not enough to retrieve all relevant references these OA journals are uniquely indexed in BNI compared all! Performance and dis-advantages of a diagnostic test K. Comparison of the search of nursing care literature on a condition. Bramer, W.M., Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen, J. et al possible combination for reviews. Bramer, W.M., Rethlefsen, M.L., Kleijnen J Lewis-Light K. what value is the CINAHL.... Translate a search strategy into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as field codes one database search all of! Selected the references relevant for inclusion in their systematic review of frozen shoulder management Cochrane Handbook recommends MEDLINE. Gs Google Scholar CENTRAL, and Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic of. Of systematic reviews for which a certain recall co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies are database specific care. The probability that 100 % of relevant references were included articles that had been designed sensitively enough published! Review, we analyzed whether the added value of Web of Science similarly! K. Comparison of bibliographic databases in their systematic review of frozen shoulder management article... How many had used enough databases to ensure 95 % recall, for this research, a total 1830! Provide access to databases is laborious for searchers to translate a search that. What value is the CINAHL database when searching only one literature database for articles with generous. Translate to being found by a search strategy into multiple interfaces and syntaxes! The reviews ( 37 % ) relied on the record numbers of the broad topical categories covered in reviews!