Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 19;30(1):57.
doi: 10.1186/s12998-022-00468-8.

Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study

Martin Nørregård Eybye  1 , Simon Dyrløv Madsen  1   2 , Anders Nikolai Ørsted Schultz  3   4 , Casper Glissmann Nim  5   6   7
Affiliations

Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study

Martin Nørregård Eybye et al. Chiropr Man Therap. .

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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%.

Conclusions: 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.

Keywords: Randomized controlled trial; Search strategy; Spinal manipulative therapy; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the selection process of the included and excluded SRs and RCTs
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A Distribution of the included systematic reviews and B accumulation of included randomized controlled trials over time
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Number of databases searched by the systematic reviews
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Frequency of use of individual databases by the included systematic reviews
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature: IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA. 1995;274(22):1800–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03530220066035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about) BMJ. 1997;315(7102):243–246. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7102.243. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gray JAM, Shepperd S, Ison E, Lees R, Pearce-Smith N. Evidence-based healthcare and public health: how to make decisions about health services and public health. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2009.
    1. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF, et al. Towards evidence based research. Bmj. 2016;355:i5440. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5440. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH, Mills EJ, Elbourne D. In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter? PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e4. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004. - DOI - PMC - PubMed