Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Supplementary databases increased literature search coverage beyond PubMed and Embase
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Supplementary databases increased literature search coverage beyond PubMed and Embase
Do you wish to request the book?
Supplementary databases increased literature search coverage beyond PubMed and Embase
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Supplementary databases increased literature search coverage beyond PubMed and Embase
2025
Overview
In health sciences, comprehensive literature searches are crucial for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of systematic reviews. Relying on only a few databases can lead to the omission of relevant studies. The variability in database coverage for different specialties means that important literature might be missed if searches are not broadened. Supplementary databases can enhance the thoroughness of literature reviews, but the efficiency and necessity of these additional searches remain subject to debate. This study aims to explore methods for retrieving publications not indexed in PubMed and Embase, examining coverage of various specialties to determine the most effective search strategies for systematic reviews.
We selected reviews from the following Cochrane review groups: public health, incontinence, hepato-biliary, and stroke groups. All reviews published in these groups between 2017 and 2022 were analyzed. Publications included in these reviews were manually searched for in PubMed and Embase. If the publication was not found, additional databases such as Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.
The mean coverage of publications in PubMed and Embase across all four speciality groups was 71.5%, with individual group coverage ranging from 64.5% to 75.9%. An average of 5.8% of publications could not be retrieved in any of the databases studied. Additional databases varied in their coverage.
While PubMed and Embase provide substantial coverage, supplementary databases can increase retrieval of more relevant studies and are essential for a comprehensive literature search.
•Databases beyond PubMed and Embase should be included in comprehensive literature searches.•Database coverage varies significantly among review groups.•Supplementary databases enhance the thoroughness of literature searches.•Diverse methodologies, including grey literature and trial protocols, are needed.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
Subject
/ Databases, Bibliographic - statistics & numerical data
/ Databases, Factual - statistics & numerical data
/ Embase
/ Humans
/ Information Storage and Retrieval - methods
/ Information Storage and Retrieval - statistics & numerical data
/ PubMed
/ PubMed - statistics & numerical data
