Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study

B. Nussbaumer-Streit, I. Klerings, G. Wagner, T. L. Heise, A. I. Dobrescu, S. Armijo-Olivo, J. M. Stratil, E. Persad, S. K. Lhachimi, M. G. Van Noord, T. Mittermayr, H. Zeeb, L. Hemkens, G. Gartlehner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effects of abbreviated literature searches on evidence syntheses conclusions. Study design and setting: We randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews of clinical interventions and repeated literature searches using 14 abbreviated approaches (combinations of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with and without searches of reference lists). If abbreviated searches missed included studies, we recalculated meta-analyses. Cochrane authors determined whether the new evidence base would change conclusions. We assessed the noninferiority of abbreviated searches allowing for a maximum of 10% changed conclusions. Results: We conducted 840 abbreviated literature searches. Noninferiority varied based on the definition of “changed conclusion”. When the reduction of the certainty of a conclusion was of concern, all abbreviated searches were inferior. Searching Embase only rendered the greatest proportion of changed conclusions (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%–40%); combining MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with searches of references lists the lowest (8%, 95% CI 3%–18%). When falsely reaching an opposite conclusion was of concern, combining one database with another or with searches of reference lists was noninferior to comprehensive searches (2%, 95% CI: 0%–9%). Conclusion: If decision-makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high certainty require comprehensive searches.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-11
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume102
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Epidemiologic Studies
Confidence Intervals
MEDLINE
Meta-Analysis
Databases

Keywords

  • Abbreviated
  • Databases
  • Limited
  • Literature search
  • Rapid reviews
  • Systematic reviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Klerings, I., Wagner, G., Heise, T. L., Dobrescu, A. I., Armijo-Olivo, S., ... Gartlehner, G. (2018). Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 102, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022

Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches : a meta-epidemiological study. / Nussbaumer-Streit, B.; Klerings, I.; Wagner, G.; Heise, T. L.; Dobrescu, A. I.; Armijo-Olivo, S.; Stratil, J. M.; Persad, E.; Lhachimi, S. K.; Van Noord, M. G.; Mittermayr, T.; Zeeb, H.; Hemkens, L.; Gartlehner, G.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 102, 10.2018, p. 1-11.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nussbaumer-Streit, B, Klerings, I, Wagner, G, Heise, TL, Dobrescu, AI, Armijo-Olivo, S, Stratil, JM, Persad, E, Lhachimi, SK, Van Noord, MG, Mittermayr, T, Zeeb, H, Hemkens, L & Gartlehner, G 2018, 'Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 102, pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022
Nussbaumer-Streit, B. ; Klerings, I. ; Wagner, G. ; Heise, T. L. ; Dobrescu, A. I. ; Armijo-Olivo, S. ; Stratil, J. M. ; Persad, E. ; Lhachimi, S. K. ; Van Noord, M. G. ; Mittermayr, T. ; Zeeb, H. ; Hemkens, L. ; Gartlehner, G. / Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches : a meta-epidemiological study. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018 ; Vol. 102. pp. 1-11.
@article{e7d30f1e2257416f84e95e1ffc632ce8,
title = "Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the effects of abbreviated literature searches on evidence syntheses conclusions. Study design and setting: We randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews of clinical interventions and repeated literature searches using 14 abbreviated approaches (combinations of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with and without searches of reference lists). If abbreviated searches missed included studies, we recalculated meta-analyses. Cochrane authors determined whether the new evidence base would change conclusions. We assessed the noninferiority of abbreviated searches allowing for a maximum of 10{\%} changed conclusions. Results: We conducted 840 abbreviated literature searches. Noninferiority varied based on the definition of “changed conclusion”. When the reduction of the certainty of a conclusion was of concern, all abbreviated searches were inferior. Searching Embase only rendered the greatest proportion of changed conclusions (27{\%}, 95{\%} confidence interval [CI]: 16{\%}–40{\%}); combining MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with searches of references lists the lowest (8{\%}, 95{\%} CI 3{\%}–18{\%}). When falsely reaching an opposite conclusion was of concern, combining one database with another or with searches of reference lists was noninferior to comprehensive searches (2{\%}, 95{\%} CI: 0{\%}–9{\%}). Conclusion: If decision-makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high certainty require comprehensive searches.",
keywords = "Abbreviated, Databases, Limited, Literature search, Rapid reviews, Systematic reviews",
author = "B. Nussbaumer-Streit and I. Klerings and G. Wagner and Heise, {T. L.} and Dobrescu, {A. I.} and S. Armijo-Olivo and Stratil, {J. M.} and E. Persad and Lhachimi, {S. K.} and {Van Noord}, {M. G.} and T. Mittermayr and H. Zeeb and L. Hemkens and G. Gartlehner",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "102",
pages = "1--11",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches

T2 - a meta-epidemiological study

AU - Nussbaumer-Streit, B.

AU - Klerings, I.

AU - Wagner, G.

AU - Heise, T. L.

AU - Dobrescu, A. I.

AU - Armijo-Olivo, S.

AU - Stratil, J. M.

AU - Persad, E.

AU - Lhachimi, S. K.

AU - Van Noord, M. G.

AU - Mittermayr, T.

AU - Zeeb, H.

AU - Hemkens, L.

AU - Gartlehner, G.

PY - 2018/10

Y1 - 2018/10

N2 - Objective: To assess the effects of abbreviated literature searches on evidence syntheses conclusions. Study design and setting: We randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews of clinical interventions and repeated literature searches using 14 abbreviated approaches (combinations of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with and without searches of reference lists). If abbreviated searches missed included studies, we recalculated meta-analyses. Cochrane authors determined whether the new evidence base would change conclusions. We assessed the noninferiority of abbreviated searches allowing for a maximum of 10% changed conclusions. Results: We conducted 840 abbreviated literature searches. Noninferiority varied based on the definition of “changed conclusion”. When the reduction of the certainty of a conclusion was of concern, all abbreviated searches were inferior. Searching Embase only rendered the greatest proportion of changed conclusions (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%–40%); combining MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with searches of references lists the lowest (8%, 95% CI 3%–18%). When falsely reaching an opposite conclusion was of concern, combining one database with another or with searches of reference lists was noninferior to comprehensive searches (2%, 95% CI: 0%–9%). Conclusion: If decision-makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high certainty require comprehensive searches.

AB - Objective: To assess the effects of abbreviated literature searches on evidence syntheses conclusions. Study design and setting: We randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews of clinical interventions and repeated literature searches using 14 abbreviated approaches (combinations of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with and without searches of reference lists). If abbreviated searches missed included studies, we recalculated meta-analyses. Cochrane authors determined whether the new evidence base would change conclusions. We assessed the noninferiority of abbreviated searches allowing for a maximum of 10% changed conclusions. Results: We conducted 840 abbreviated literature searches. Noninferiority varied based on the definition of “changed conclusion”. When the reduction of the certainty of a conclusion was of concern, all abbreviated searches were inferior. Searching Embase only rendered the greatest proportion of changed conclusions (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%–40%); combining MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with searches of references lists the lowest (8%, 95% CI 3%–18%). When falsely reaching an opposite conclusion was of concern, combining one database with another or with searches of reference lists was noninferior to comprehensive searches (2%, 95% CI: 0%–9%). Conclusion: If decision-makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high certainty require comprehensive searches.

KW - Abbreviated

KW - Databases

KW - Limited

KW - Literature search

KW - Rapid reviews

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049013416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049013416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022

M3 - Article

C2 - 29864540

AN - SCOPUS:85049013416

VL - 102

SP - 1

EP - 11

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -