Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
The Chiropractic Knowledge Hub, Odense, Denmark.
Chiropr Man Therap. 2022 Dec 19;30(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12998-022-00468-8.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
系统评价（SRs）是一种随机对照试验（RCTs），被认为是最可靠的研究类型之一。通过系统而全面的文献检索，研究人员旨在收集与研究目的相关的所有研究。数据库的选择可能具有挑战性，并且取决于研究的主题。 Cochrane 手册建议至少搜索以下三个数据库：Cochrane 图书馆、MEDLINE 和 EMBASE。然而，对于一般的肌肉骨骼领域的综述来说，这并不总是足够的。本研究旨在调查研究人员在脊椎手法治疗（SMT）的 SR 中使用数据库的频率和选择。其次，分析纳入的 RCT，以确定为 SMT 的 SR 进行高效文献检索所需的最佳数据库组合。
通过在 PubMed 和 Epistemonikos（截至 2022 年 2 月 25 日的所有条目）中搜索，确定了研究 SMT 对任何患者报告的结果测量的影响的 SR。对于每个 SR，收集了搜索和纳入的 RCT 数据库。在九个数据库（Cochrane 图书馆、MEDLINE/PubMed、EMBASE、Google Scholar、CINAHL、Web of Science、Index to Chiropractic Literature、PEDro 和 AMED）中单独搜索 RCT。使用数据库检索的 RCT 数量或数据库组合除以 RCT 的总数来计算覆盖率。
符合纳入标准的 85 篇 SR 发表，共检索到 442 篇独特的 RCT。最常搜索的数据库是 MEDLINE/PubMed。Cochrane 图书馆的总体覆盖率最高，包含第三多的独特 RCT。虽然不可能达到 100%的检索率，因为在九个数据库中都无法检索到 18 项 RCT，但 Cochrane 图书馆、Google Scholar 和 PEDro 的组合检索到了所有可能的 RCT，合并覆盖率为 95.9%。
对于 SMT 的 SR，我们建议使用 Cochrane 手册建议的 Cochrane 图书馆、MEDLINE/PubMed、Embase 的组合，另外还可以使用 PEDro 和 Chiropractic Literature 索引。Google Scholar 可以作为搜索灰色文献和质量保证的工具额外使用。
