Abstract:BackgroundOne of the best sources for high quality information about healthcare interventions is a systematic review. A well-conducted systematic review includes a comprehensive literature search. There is limited empiric evidence to guide the extent of searching, in particular the number of electronic databases that should be searched. We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative analysis to examine the potential impact of selective database searching on results of meta-analyses.MethodsOur sample included systematic reviews (SRs) with at least one meta-analysis from three Cochrane Review Groups: Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI), Infectious Diseases (ID), Developmental Psychosocial and Learning Problems (DPLP) (n = 129). Outcomes included: 1) proportion of relevant studies indexed in each of 10 databases; and 2) changes in results and statistical significance of primary meta-analysis for studies identified in Medline only and in Medline plus each of the other databases.ResultsDue to variation across topics, we present results by group (ARI n = 57, ID n = 38, DPLP n = 34). For ARI, identification of relevant studies was highest for Medline (85 %) and Embase (80 %). Restricting meta-analyses to trials that appeared in Medline + Embase yielded fewest changes in statistical significance: 53/55 meta-analyses showed no change. Point estimates changed in 12 cases; in 7 the change was less than 20 %. For ID, yield was highest for Medline (92 %), Embase (81 %), and BIOSIS (67 %). Restricting meta-analyses to trials that appeared in Medline + BIOSIS yielded fewest changes with 1 meta-analysis changing in statistical significance. Point estimates changed in 8 of 31 meta-analyses; change less than 20 % in all cases. For DPLP, identification of relevant studies was highest for Medline (75 %) and Embase (62 %). Restricting meta-analyses to trials that appeared in Medline + PsycINFO resulted in only one change in significance. Point estimates changed for 13 of 33 meta-analyses; less than 20 % in 9 cases.ConclusionsMajority of relevant studies can be found within a limited number of databases. Results of meta-analyses based on the majority of studies did not differ in most cases. There were very few cases of changes in statistical significance. Effect estimates changed in a minority of meta-analyses but in most the change was small. Results did not change in a systematic manner (i.e., regularly over- or underestimating treatment effects), suggesting that selective searching may not introduce bias in terms of effect estimates.

De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote

Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references

Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: A follow-up study to evaluate the performance of various automated methods for reference de-duplication

Automation of duplicate record detection for systematic reviews: Deduplicator

Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module

Irreproducibility in Searches of Scientific Literature: A Comparative Analysis.

Reducing systematic review burden using Deduklick: a novel, automated, reliable, and explainable deduplication algorithm to foster medical research

Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study

Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote

The Automated Systematic Search Deduplicator (ASySD): a rapid, open-source, interoperable tool to remove duplicate citations in biomedical systematic reviews

A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches

Find Duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in Systematic Review

Where you search determines what you find: the effects of bibliographic databases on systematic reviews

The optimal approach for retrieving systematic reviews was achieved when searching MEDLINE and Epistemonikos in addition to reference checking: a methodological validation study

The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study

Navigating duplication in pharmacovigilance databases: a scoping review

A search filter for increasing the retrieval of animal studies in Embase

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

Searchsmart.org: Guiding researchers to the best databases and search systems for systematic reviews and beyond

Design and implementation of Metta, a metasearch engine for biomedical literature retrieval intended for systematic reviewers

Systematically Searching Empirical Literature in the Social Sciences: Results from Two Meta-Analyses Within the Domain of Education