disadvantages of cinahl database

ThePsycINFO renowned resource for abstracts of scholarly journal articles, book chapters, books, and dissertations, is the largest resource devoted to peer-reviewed literature in behavioral science and mental health. Almost all reviews (97%) reported a search in MEDLINE. <> This study also highlights once more that searching databases alone is, nevertheless, not enough to retrieve all relevant references. Correspondence to The CINAHL Plus with Full Text database is an unfiltered database containing over 750 nursing and allied health related journals, and indexes another 5,000. 2. MedicLatinais a unique collection of medical research and investigatory journals from renowned Latin American and Spanish publishers. PubMedGoogle Scholar. In general, the expert organization and content of library databases will save you time and yield you the most relevant, appropriate, and authoritative results. Of all reviews in which we searched CINAHL and PsycINFO, respectively, for 6 and 9% of the reviews, unique references were found. Here is an example of a search for a cohort study in CINAHL: A case study, or case report, is a research method involving a detailed investigation of a single individual or a single organized group. Some concluded that searching only one database can be sufficient as searching other databases has no effect on the outcome [16, 17]. When searching for a systematic review, recall is the most important aspect, as the researcher does not want to miss any relevant references. Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. The references to these reviews can be found in Additional file 1. Google Scholar. Bookshelf When searching for complex topics, you'll want to use multiple search terms and Boolean operators, both in the search boxes and between the search boxes, to get the best results. See Fig. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. sharing sensitive information, make sure youre on a federal At Erasmus MC, search strategies for systematic reviews are often designed via a librarian-mediated search service. 1990;23:58393. 2005 Jan 8;5:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-2. Library users and staff use WorldCat Discovery to search the WorldCat database of electronic, digital and physical resources; to identify materials they need and to find out where they are available. Reviews included in the research. It is therefore important to search MEDLINE including the Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations references. Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies Cite this article. The reviews covered a wide variety of disease, none of which was present in more than 12% of the reviews. Beyer FR, Wright K. Can we prioritise which databases to search? Beginning in May 2013, the number of records retrieved from each search for each database was recorded at the moment of searching. In 73 of these, the searches and results had been documented by the first author of this article at the time of the last search. Many articles written on this topic have calculated overall recall of several reviews, instead of the effects on all individual reviews. Based on these, we determined the percentage of reviews where that database combination had achieved 100% recall, more than 95%, more than 90%, and more than 80%. Because this is a novel finding, we cannot conclude whether it is due to our dataset or to a generalizable principle. Health Inf Libr J. CAS A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension. Cochrane CENTRAL is absent from the table, as for the five reviews limited to randomized trials, it did not add any unique included references. To determine how searching multiple databases affected precision, we calculated for each combination the ratio between the original precision, observed when all databases were searched, and the precision calculated for different database combinations. The calculation is shown in Table5. del rio rams . Figure4 shows the distribution of this value for individual reviews. kON0=ArP35x`*[r(DYVBa9BJ2w\LueOJ=i.dR;mmP/P Google Scholar, Zheng MH, Zhang X, Ye Q, Chen YP. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the A total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. Unique results from specialized databases that closely match systematic review topics, such as PsycINFO for reviews in the fields of behavioral sciences and mental health or CINAHL for reviews on the topics of nursing or allied health, indicate that specialized databases should be used additionally when appropriate. Our study shows that, to reach maximum recall, searches in systematic reviews ought to include a combination of databases. Improvement of precision was calculated as the ratio between the original precision from the searches in all databases and the precision for each database and combination. Our experience in this study shows that additional efforts, such as hand searching, reference checking, and contacting key players, should be made to retrieve extra possible includes. To learn more about Boolean operators, please see this Quick Answer: Here is an example of how to put together a complex search in CINAHL: Note: If you have not already logged in to the Library databases, you will be prompted to log in with your myWalden Portal user name and password. Rice DB, Kloda LA, Levis B, Qi B, Kingsland E, Thombs BD. It is laborious for searchers to translate a search strategy into multiple interfaces and search syntaxes, as field codes and proximity operators differ between interfaces. Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. 3 for the legend of the plots in Figs. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Phys Ther. Subject-specific databases like PsycINFO only added unique references to a small percentage of systematic reviews when they had been used for the search. Nursing & Allied Health SourceTM provides users with reliable healthcare information covering nursing, allied health, alternative and complementary medicine. 2015 Jun 26;4:82. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0074-7. [17] found the added value of other databases only for newer, non-indexed references. There are also fewer of them, and they can be harder to find. See Fig. Furthermore, it is time-consuming for reviewers who have to screen more, and likely irrelevant, titles and abstracts. In general, searches are developed in MEDLINE in Ovid (Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid MEDLINE, from 1946); Embase.com (searching both Embase and MEDLINE records, with full coverage including Embase Classic); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Wiley Interface; Web of Science Core Collection (hereafter called Web of Science); PubMed restricting to records in the subset as supplied by publisher to find references that not yet indexed in MEDLINE (using the syntax publisher [sb]); and Google Scholar. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y. Posted on 16 December 2021 - 7:39 pm by . There is an overlap in the journals indexed by these two databases. This limiter box allows you to select specific article types. Google Scholar. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. In Excel, we calculated the performance of each individual database and various combinations. "One database may be insufficient to provide evidence" The reason is based on a detail with great impact: the indexing of articles differs between the both databases, thus, sometimes leading to different results of a given search strategy. l1FcqL@Bk>>T Kr Mo@h(fW"\x| Tu?g n=~?@(wg These values were calculated both for all reviews combined and per individual review. Differences in thesaurus terms between databases add another significant burden for translation. Of the 11 references included in this review, one was found only in Google Scholar and one only in Web of Science. NOTE There are many limiters that we haven't covered. Register a free Taylor & Francis Online account today to boost your research and gain these benefits: Comparison of CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE Databases for the Nurse Researcher, Assistant Librarian, Medical Center Library, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, 36688, Associate Director for Public Services, Scott Memorial Library, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, /doi/epdf/10.1300/J115V12N03_04?needAccess=true. There are disadvantages to using multiple databases. 2013;66:10517. 8600 Rockville Pike Article Can Fam Physician. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2016;16:113. Part of 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Finding resources: MEDLINE. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We see that reviewers rarely use Web of Science and especially Google Scholar in their searches, though they retrieve a great deal of unique references in our reviews. Scroll down the page below the search boxes to locate these filters or limiters. A total of 292 (17%) references were found by only one database. ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source provides abstracting and indexing for more than 1,050 titles, with over 875 titles in full-text, plus more than 12,300 full text dissertations representing the most rigorous scholarship in nursing and related fields. Most reviews did not limit to certain study designs, 9% limited to RCTs only, and another 9% limited to other study types. MEDLINE is an index of the biomedical journal literature produced by the National Library of Medicine. using CINAHL alone. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. I;u?5Z=bL(lWh{d QrX". 2013 Jan 9;13:7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7. Clipboard, Search History, and several other advanced features are temporarily unavailable. We selected the domain from a pre-defined set of broad domains, including therapy, etiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, management, and prognosis. Researchers planning a systematic review generally perform one review, and they need to estimate the probability that they may miss relevant articles in their search. In 12 reviews (52%), Scopus retrieved 100% of all included references retrieved by Embase or Web of Science. All searches in this study were developed and executed by W.M.B. Abbreviations: EM Embase, ML MEDLINE, WoS Web of Science, GS Google Scholar. endobj Beckles Z, Glover S, Ashe J, Stockton S, Boynton J, Lai R, Alderson P. Searching CINAHL did not add value to clinical questions posed in NICE guidelines. 2015;68:61726. 2014;21:34354. Consequently . A review of meta-analyses. For a search related to nursing, . Google Scholar. Database designers and developers, the data and database administrators and end-users must understand this functionality to take full advantage of it. Due to the nature and distribution of the nursing literature, it is especially important for the searcher to understand and respond to the focus of the researcher. 3099067 2017. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1279. f~C>j)Kx8t>qi0@fWT. The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM, Anderson PF. Although Embase covers MEDLINE, it apparently does not index every article from MEDLINE. WB drafted the first manuscript, which was revised critically by the other authors. Halladay et al. Once you have set up your search, here is how you can limit your results to only case studies: CINAHL Plus with Full Text offers a number of filters or limiters that can help you find only specific types of studies. The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. 2014;30:1738. It is likely caused by difference in thesaurus terms that were added, but further analysis would be required to determine reasons for not finding the MEDLINE records in Embase. Review projects at Erasmus MC cover a wide range of medical topics, from therapeutic effectiveness and diagnostic accuracy to ethics and public health. Those databases that contributed the most unique included references were then considered candidate databases to determine the most optimal combination of databases in the further analyses. Syst Rev. In the case of a clinical question, precision is most important, as a practicing clinician does not have a lot of time to read through many articles in a clinical setting. The purpose of this research was to determine which of three databases, CINAHL, EMBASE or MEDLINE, should be accessed when researching nursing topics. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. This search was used in earlier research [21]. Future research should continue to investigate recall of actual searches beyond coverage of databases and should consider focusing on the most optimal database combinations, not on single databases. Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. @mR]L#-wbtR5Q J Kerman Univ Med Sci. The recall of the database combinations was calculated over all included references retrieved by any database. There are disadvantages to using multiple databases. Bramer, W.M., Rethlefsen, M.L., Kleijnen, J. et al. One hundred and fifty-nine journals are uniquely indexed in BNI compared with the basic version of CINAHL. 2013;30:4958. 2005 Jan;58(1):20-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.001. Films Media Group serves the education community through its four brands: Films for the Humanities and Sciences, Cambridge Educational, Meridian Education, and Shopware. We are aware that the Cochrane Handbook [7] recommends more than only these databases, but further recommendations focus on regional and specialized databases. 1996 Jul;84(3):402-8. For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall. Inj Prev. Would you like email updates of new search results? J Clin Epidemiol. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews. Article According to our data, PubMeds as supplied by publisher subset retrieved 12 unique included references, and it was the most important addition in terms of relevant references to the four major databases. Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, Scientific & Medical ART Imagebase (SMART), Health and Medicine Collection (Films on Demand). BMC Med Res Methodol. The searcher in the case of all 58 systematic reviews is an experienced biomedical information specialist. Terms and Conditions, Once you have set up your search, here is how you can limit your results to only systematic reviews in CINAHL: Randomized controlled trials are the studies commonly used to support systematic reviews and are a high level of evidence. Based on the record numbers of the search results in EndNote, we determined from which database these references came. Case studies may be prospective (in which criteria are established and cases fitting the criteria are included as they become available) or retrospective (in which criteria are established and cases are selected from historical records for inclusion in the study). Embase and MEDLINE combined with either Google Scholar or Web of Science scored similarly well on overall recall (95.9%). PubMed Central (PMC) is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM). :p#("-!r>5"@5Ip^P|~1zsqE- @QK Lastly, access to databases is often limited and only available on subscription basis. ?lq!9!OW$2w1tp=/0 0aPz6Kx|M}97_jn{oy0@o65I>KrjPov= D@H?z`. Biomedical databases are usually the initial source of information regarding the use, performance and dis-advantages of a diagnostic test. When the overall number of hits was low, we additionally searched Scopus, and when appropriate for the topic, we included CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), and SportDiscus (EBSCOhost) in our search. Wichor M. Bramer. Lorenzetti DL, Topfer L-A, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than MEDLINE for rapid health technology assessments. We found that two databases previously not recommended as essential for systematic review searching, Web of Science and Google Scholar, were key to improving recall in the reviews we investigated. The median % of unique studies was 9.09 %; while the range had a lowest value of 5.0 % to the highest value of 33.0 %. Searching additional databases except PubMed are necessary for a systematic review. A comparative study of clinical end-user and librarian searches. 2011. Technical Problems Every computer system will have a breakdown. References to the systematic reviews published by Erasmus MC authors that were included in the research. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). We are not implying that a combined search of the four recommended databases will never result in relevant references being missed, rather that failure to search any one of these four databases will likely lead to relevant references being missed. Of the five reviews that included only RCTs, four reached 100% recall if MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar combined were complemented with Cochrane CENTRAL. We've already shown how to use this limiter for systematic reviews and case studies; other useful publication types for evidence-based practice include Clinical Trial and Meta Analysis. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. % Due to the nature and distribution of the nursing literature, it is especially important for the searcher to understand and respond to the focus of the researcher. Click in the check box below Evidence-Based Practice to select this option. FOIA 4 0 obj Using similar calculations, also shown in Table5, we estimated the probability that 100% of relevant references were retrieved is 23%. WB and ML analyzed the data. Films Media Group is the leading source of high-quality video and multimedia for academic, vocational and life-skills content. Lawrence DW. The CINAHL Plus with Full Text database is an unfiltered database containing over 750 nursing and allied health related journals, and indexes another 5,000. J Immigr Minor Health. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Since these studies have a long-term component, they promote abetter quality of evidence than a shorter study. disadvantages of cinahl database. Where should the pharmacy researcher look first? To identify whether our searches had found the included references, and if so, from which database(s) that citation was retrieved, each included reference was located in the original corresponding EndNote library using the first author name combined with the publication year as a search term for each specific relevant publication. Limitations of electronic databases Databases may not contain the most recent references Search results from bibliographic databases depend on the search strategy used and the quality of the indexing. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. Handwashing OR "Hand Washing" OR "Hand Rubs" OR "Hand Disinfection". WB, JK, and OF designed the study. A fast and easy research tool for nursing and allied health professionals with access to content coverage including over 50 nursing specialties, speech and language pathology, nutrition, general health and medicine and . Ignoring one or more of the databases that we identified as the four key databases will result in more precise searches with a lower number of results, but the researchers should decide whether that is worth the >increased probability of losing relevant references. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree?

James G Richardson Ski Accident, Spiritual Person Vs Religious Person, Margaret Lou Pickens, Delphi Murders Maxwell, Uss Princeton Vietnam, Articles D