Category Ranking
98%
Total Visits
921
Avg Visit Duration
2 minutes
Citations
20
Article Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general. This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT.
Methods: SRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs.
Results: Eighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%.
Conclusions: For SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9764566 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00468-8 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Purpose: The purpose of this document is to review current methods for cervical ripening and to summarize the effectiveness of these approaches based on appropriately conducted outcomes-based research. This document focuses on cervical ripening in individuals with term, singleton, vertex pregnancies with membranes intact, because this is the population in whom most studies were conducted. For more information on recommended timing of delivery based on maternal, fetal, and obstetric conditions and on labor management, refer to: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee Opinion No.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFA Systematic Literature Review of Preference Studies in Migraine Treatments.
Patient
September 2025
PPD Evidera Patient-Centered Research, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA.
Background: Migraine care is often suboptimal owing to undertreatment, variation in clinical outcomes and administration methods among existing treatments, and between- and within-individual heterogeneity in the clinical course of migraine. In response to these challenges, preference studies have been increasingly conducted to inform treatment decision-making and development. However, gaps remain in understanding how treatment preferences have been assessed across different migraine studies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEfficacy of sonothrombolysis as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Thromb Thrombolysis
September 2025
Faculty of Medicine, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh, Egypt.
In this review, we aimed to evaluate Sonothrombolysis when combined with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in STEMI patients with regard to improving cardiac function and clinical outcomes. This study primarily assesses short-term efficacy outcomes, while long-term impacts, such as mortality, were not evaluated. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) to identify eligible studies reported up to November 2024.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTarget controlled infusion in the intensive care unit: a scoping review.
J Clin Monit Comput
September 2025
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Target-controlled infusion (TCI) systems, originally developed for intravenous drug administration of anesthetic drugs, enable precise drug delivery based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PKPD) models. While widely used in the operating room, their application in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains limited despite the complexity of drug dosing in critically ill patients. This scoping review evaluates existing evidence on the use of TCI systems in ICU settings, focusing on sedation, analgesia, and antibiotic administration.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThoracoscopic versus conventional thoracotomy for esophageal atresia/tracheoesophageal fistula repair: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 25 comparative studies.
Pediatr Surg Int
September 2025
Pediatric Surgery Department, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital, Monastir, Tunisia.
Purpose: This meta-analysis compares thoracoscopic versus open thoracotomy repair of esophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula (EA/TEF).
Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to April 2025 for studies comparing thoracoscopic versus conventional thoracotomy approaches. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using appropriate tools.