Overlaps of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking in dementia care research: a methodological study
Keywords:Database, Literature Searching, Dementia, Implementation Science, Evidence-based Nursing
Objective: We aimed to determine overlaps and optimal combination of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking for evidence synthesis, based on a previously conducted scoping review on facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-led interventions in dementia care.
Methods: In our 2019 scoping review, we performed a comprehensive literature search in eight databases (CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, MEDLINE, Ovid Nursing Database, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection) and used citation tracking. We retrospectively analyzed the coverage and overlap of 10,527 retrieved studies published between 2015 and 2019. To analyze database overlap, we used cross tables and multiple correspondence analysis (MCA).
Results: Of the retrieved studies, 6,944 were duplicates and 3,583 were unique references. Using our search strategies, considerable overlaps can be found in some databases, such as between MEDLINE and Web of Science Core Collection or between CINAHL, Emcare, and PsycINFO. Searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection and using citation tracking were necessary to retrieve all included studies of our scoping review.
Conclusions: Our results can contribute to enhancing future search practice related to database selection in dementia care research. However, due to limited generalizability, researchers and librarians should carefully choose databases based on the research question. More research on optimal database retrieval in dementia care research is required for the development of methodological standards.
Pearson A, Wiechula R, Court A, Lockwood C. The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2005;3(8):207–15. DOI:10.1111/j.1479-6988.2005.00026.x.
Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1). DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2013;50(5):587–92. DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010.
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350h1258. eng. DOI:10.1136/bmj.h1258.
Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202–22. DOI:10.1111/hir.12276.
Cooper C, Booth A, Varley-Campbell J, Britten N, Garside R. Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018;1885. DOI:10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3.
Cooper C, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R. A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review. Syst Rev. 2017;6234. DOI:10.1186/s13643-017-0625-1.
Hirt J, Neyer S, Nordhausen T. [Comprehensive literature searches – an overview]. GMS Medizin - Bibliothek - Information. 2019;19(1-2):Doc05. DOI:10.3205/mbi000430.
Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2016;16127. DOI:10.1186/s12874-016-0232-1.
Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):50. DOI:10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y.
Levay P, Raynor M, Tuvey D. The Contributions of MEDLINE, Other Bibliographic Databases and Various Search Techniques to NICE Public Health Guidance. EBLIP. 2015;10(1):50. DOI:10.18438/B82P55.
Lam MT, McDiarmid M. Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(4):284–9. DOI:10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.006.
Giang HTN, Ahmed AM, Fala RY, Khattab MM, Othman MHA, Abdelrahman SAM, Le Thao P, Gabl AEAE, Elrashedy SA, Lee PN, Hirayama K, Salem H, Huy NT. Methodological steps used by authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2019;19(1):1086. DOI:10.1186/s12874-019-0780-2.
Vassar M, Yerokhin V, Sinnett PM, Weiher M, Muckelrath H, Carr B, Varney L, Cook G. Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology. Health Info Libr J. 2017;34(2):156–64. DOI:10.1111/hir.12176.
Frandsen TF, Gildberg FA, Tingleff EB. Searching for qualitative health research required several databases and alternative search strategies: a study of coverage in bibliographic databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;114118–24. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.013.
Dunn K, Marshall JG, Wells AL, Backus JEB. Examining the role of MEDLINE as a patient care information resource: an analysis of data from the Value of Libraries study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105(4):336–46. DOI:10.5195/jmla.2017.87.
Nordhausen T, Hirt J. [Navigating in the jungle - recommendations for selecting databases for systematic literature searching]. GMS Medizin - Bibliothek - Information. 2020;Article in Press.
Bullers K, Howard AM, Hanson A, Kearns WD, Orriola JJ, Polo RL, Sakmar KA. It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(2):198–207. DOI:10.5195/jmla.2018.323.
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. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):1051–7. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.04.009.
Bahaadinbeigy K, Yogesan K, Wootton R. MEDLINE versus EMBASE and CINAHL for telemedicine searches. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16(8):916–9. DOI:10.1089/tmj.2010.0046.
Hanneke R, O'Brien KK. Comparison of three web-scale discovery services for health sciences research. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(2):109–17. DOI:10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.004.
Aalai E, Gleghorn C, Webb A, Glover SW. Accessing public health information: a preliminary comparison of CABI's GLOBAL HEALTH database and MEDLINE. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(1):56–62. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00781.x.
Xia J, Wright J, Adams CE. Five large Chinese biomedical bibliographic databases: accessibility and coverage. Health Info Libr J. 2008;25(1):55–61. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00734.x.
Wright K, Golder S, Lewis-Light K. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? Syst Rev. 2015;4104. DOI:10.1186/s13643-015-0069-4.
Subirana M, Solá I, Garcia JM, Gich I, Urrútia G. A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(1):20–5. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.001.
Ross-White A, Godfrey C. Is there an optimum number needed to retrieve to justify inclusion of a database in a systematic review search? Health Info Libr J. 2017;34(3):217–24. DOI:10.1111/hir.12185.
Aagaard T, Lund H, Juhl C. Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews - are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2016;16(1):161. DOI:10.1186/s12874-016-0264-6.
Beyer FR, Wright K. Can we prioritise which databases to search? A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. Health Info Libr J. 2013;30(1):49–58. DOI:10.1111/hir.12009.
Goossen K, Hess S, Lunny C, Pieper D. Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in overviews of reviews: a methodological study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20138. DOI:10.1186/s12874-020-00983-3.
Briscoe S, Cooper C. The British Nursing Index and CINAHL: a comparison of journal title coverage and the implications for information professionals. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31(3):195–203. DOI:10.1111/hir.12069.
Cooper C, Rogers M, Bethel A, Briscoe S, Lowe J. A mapping review of the literature on UK-focused health and social care databases. Health Info Libr J. 2015;32(1):5–22. DOI:10.1111/hir.12083.
Higgins JPT, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Thomas J, Flemyng E, Churchill R. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR): Standards for the conduct and reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews, reporting of protocols and the planning, conduct and reporting of updates Version October 2019; 2019.
Frandsen TF, Eriksen MB, Hammer DMG, Christensen JB. PubMed coverage varied across specialties and over time: a large-scale study of included studies in Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;11259–66. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.015.
Karrer M, Hirt J, Zeller A, Saxer S. What hinders and facilitates the implementation of nurse-led interventions in dementia care? A scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20127. DOI:10.1186/s12877-020-01520-z.
McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;7540–6.
Husson F, Lê S, Pagès J. Exploratory multivariate analysis by example using R. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017. 248 p. (CRC computer science and data analysis series). eng.
Bergmann JM, Ströbel AM, Holle B, Palm R. Empirical development of a typology on residential long-term care units in Germany - results of an exploratory multivariate data analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20646. DOI:10.1186/s12913-020-05401-4.
Costa PS, Santos NC, Cunha P, Cotter J, Sousa N. The Use of Multiple Correspondence Analysis to Explore Associations between Categories of Qualitative Variables in Healthy Ageing. Journal of Aging Research. 2013;2013302163. DOI:10.1155/2013/302163.
Le Roux B, Rouanet H. Multiple correspondence analysis. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2010. 115 p. (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences; vol. 163). eng.
Pagès J. Multiple factor analysis by example using R. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2015. 257 p. (A Chapman & Hall book). eng.
Petersen T, Schwender C, editors. [Die Entschlüsselung der Bilder. Methoden zur Erforschung visueller Kommunikation: ein Handbuch]. Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag; 2018.
R: The R Project for Statistical Computing [Internet]. 2020 [updated 2020 Jun 22; cited 2020 Aug 28]. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/.
Lê S, Josse J, Husson F. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. J. Stat. Soft. 2008;25(1). DOI:10.18637/jss.v025.i01.
Rogers M, Bethel A, Abbott R. Locating qualitative studies in dementia on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO: a comparison of search strategies. Research Synthesis Methods. 2018;9(4):579–86. DOI:10.1002/jrsm.1280.
Hausner E, Waffenschmidt S. Value of using different search approaches [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 18]. Available from: http://vortal.htai.org/?q=node/993.
Belter CW. Citation analysis as a literature search method for systematic reviews. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2016;67(11):2766–77. DOI:10.1002/asi.23605.
Belter CW. A relevance ranking method for citation-based search results. Scientometrics. 2017;112(2):731–46. DOI:10.1007/s11192-017-2406-y.
Janssens ACJW, Gwinn M, Brockman JE, Powell K, Goodman M. Novel citation-based search method for scientific literature: a validation study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2020;20198. DOI:10.1186/s12874-020-0907-5.
Hirt J, Nordhausen T, Appenzeller-Herzog C, Ewald H. Using citation tracking for systematic literature searching: Study protocol for a scoping review of methodological studies and an expert survey. F1000Res. 2020;Submitted.
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. Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;1021–11. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022.