Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2005

Open Access 01-12-2005 | Research article

Systematic reviews of epidemiology in diabetes: finding the evidence

Authors: Pamela Royle, Lynda Bain, Norman Waugh

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Methodological research to support searching for those doing systematic reviews of epidemiological studies is a relatively neglected area. Our aim was to determine how many databases it is necessary to search to ensure a comprehensive coverage of the literature in diabetes epidemiology, with the aim of examining the efficiency of searching in support of systematic reviews of the epidemiology of diabetes

Methods

Three approaches were used. First, we defined a set of English language diabetes journals and examined their coverage in bibliographic databases. Second, we searched extensively for diabetes epidemiology articles (in all languages) to determine which are the most useful databases; and third, we analysed the scattering of these articles to determine the core journals in the area.

Results

The overlap between MEDLINE and Embase for diabetes journals was 59%. A search for diabetes epidemiology articles across both MEDLINE and Embase, showed that MEDLINE alone retrieved about 94% of the total articles. Searching for diabetes epidemiology studies beyond MEDLINE and Embase retrieved no additional English language journal articles. The only diabetes epidemiology studies found by searching beyond MEDLINE and Embase were found in LILACS, and were Spanish or Portuguese language studies from Latin America; no additional English language studies were found. Only 30% of the meeting abstracts were converted to full publication after three years. One third of journal articles were published in just six journals, with Diabetes Care contributing 14.3% of the articles, followed by Diabetic Medicine (5.0%); Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice (4.1%); Diabetologia (4.0%); Diabetes & Metabolism (2.4%) and Diabetes (2.0%).

Conclusions

Our results show that when searching for articles on diabetes epidemiology, MEDLINE and Embase would suffice for English language papers, with LILACS giving some additional non-English articles from Latin America. Although a MEDLINE-only search will retrieve the vast majority of the relevant literature, Embase and LILACs should also be searched to ensure the search is comprehensive. Searching for meeting abstracts is recommended to alert reviewers to unpublished work. The low rate of full publication of meeting abstracts has the danger of producing bias in reviews. Our findings on scattering show that the core literature in this field is concentrated in just six journals.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JP, editors: Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.2 [updated March 2004]. The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
2.
Mulrow CD: The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987, 106 (3): 485-488.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Dickersin K: Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind?. Int J Epidemiol. 2002, 31 (1): 6-12. 10.1093/ije/31.1.6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Breslow RA, Ross SA, Weed DL: Quality of reviews in epidemiology. Am J Pub Health. 1998, 88 (3): 475-477.CrossRef
5.
Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JP, editors: Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.2 [updated March 2004]. The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004; Section 5. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
6.
7.
8.
McDonald S, Taylor L, Adams C: Searching the right database. A comparison of four databases for psychiatry journals. Health Libr Rev. 1999, 16 (3): 151-156. 10.1046/j.1365-2532.1999.00222.x.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Bradford SC: Documentation. 1948, London: Crosby, Lockwood
10.
11.
Kleijnen J, Knipschild P: The comprehensiveness of Medline and Embase computer searches. Searches for controlled trials of homoeopathy, ascorbic acid for common cold and ginkgo biloba for cerebral insufficiency and intermittent claudication. Pharmaceutisch Weekblad – Scientific Edition. 1992, 14 (5): 316-320. 10.1007/BF01977620.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Odaka T, Nakayama A, Akazawa K, Sakamoto M, Kinukawa N, Kamakura T, et al: The effect of a multiple literature database search – a numerical evaluation in the domain of Japanese life science. J Med Systems. 1992, 16 (4): 177-181. 10.1007/BF00999380.CrossRef
13.
Ramos-Remus C, Suarez-Almazor M, Dorgan M, Gomez-Vargas A, Russell AS: Performance of online biomedical databases in rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1994, 21 (10): 1912-1921.PubMed
14.
Rovers JP, Janosik JE, Souney PF: Crossover comparison of drug information online database vendors: Dialog and MEDLARS. Ann Pharmacother. 1993, 27 (5): 634-639.PubMed
15.
Royle P, Milne R: Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003, 19 (4): 591-603.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Royle P, Waugh N: Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 2003, 7 (34): iii, ix-x,1-51-CrossRefPubMed
17.
Smith BJ, Darzins PJ, Quinn M, Heller RF: Modern methods of searching the medical literature. Med J Aust. 1992, 157 (9): 603-611.PubMed
18.
19.
20.
Scherer RW, Langenberg P: Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (Cochrane Methodology Review). The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
21.
Garfield E: The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. The Scientist. 1996, 10 (7): 13-16.
22.
Higginson J: Publication of "negative" epidemiological studies. J Chronic Dis. 1987, 40 (5): 371-372. 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90170-6.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, de Stavola BL, Goldman MB, Kalish LA, et al: Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ. 2004, 329 (7471): 883-10.1136/bmj.38250.571088.55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Systematic reviews of epidemiology in diabetes: finding the evidence
Authors
Pamela Royle
Lynda Bain
Norman Waugh
Publication date
01-12-2005
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2005
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2005

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2005 Go to the issue

Research article

Oblique decision trees for spatial pattern detection: optimal algorithm and application to malaria risk

Research article

Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials

Debate

Assessing subgroup effects with binary data: can the use of different effect measures lead to different conclusions?

Research article

The therapeutic effect of clinical trials: understanding placebo response rates in clinical trials – A secondary analysis

Research article

Effects of the search technique on the measurement of the change in quality of randomized controlled trials over time in the field of brain injury

Research article

Methods for confidence interval estimation of a ratio parameter with application to location quotients