VALUE OF DATABASES OTHER THAN MEDLINE FOR RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS

Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore the degree to which databases other than MEDLINE contribute studies relevant for inclusion in rapid health technology assessments (HTA). Methods: We determined the extent to which the clinical, economic, and social studies included in twenty-one full and four rapid HTAs published by three Canadian HTA agencies from 2007 to 2012 were indexed in MEDLINE. Other electronic databases, including EMBASE, were then searched, in sequence, to assess whether or not they indexed studies not found in MEDLINE. Assessment topics ranged from purely clinical (e.g., drug-eluting stents) to those with broader social implications (e.g., spousal violence). Results: MEDLINE contributed the majority of studies in all but two HTA reports, indexing a mean of 89.6 percent of clinical studies across all HTAs, and 88.3 percent of all clinical, economic, and social studies in twenty-four of twenty-five HTAs. While EMBASE contributed unique studies to twenty-two of twenty-five HTAs, three rapid HTAs did not include any EMBASE studies. In some instances, PsycINFO and CINAHL contributed as many, if not more, non-MEDLINE studies than EMBASE. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of assessing the topic-specific relative value of including EMBASE, or more specialized databases, in HTA search protocols. Although MEDLINE continues to be a key resource for HTAs, the time and resource limitations inherent in the production of rapid HTAs require that researchers carefully consider the value and limitations of other information sources to identify relevant studies.

[1]  G. Úrrutia,et al.  A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  Pamela Royle,et al.  LITERATURE SEARCHING FOR RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS USED IN COCHRANE REVIEWS: RAPID VERSUS EXHAUSTIVE SEARCHES , 2003, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[3]  Kambiz Bahaadinbeigy,et al.  MEDLINE versus EMBASE and CINAHL for telemedicine searches. , 2010, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[4]  D Menon,et al.  COMPARISON OF LITERATURE SEARCHES ON QUALITY AND COSTS FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT USING THE MEDLINE AND EMBASE DATABASES , 1999, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[5]  T. Turner,et al.  Searches for evidence mapping: effective, shorter, cheaper. , 2011, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[6]  D. Menon,et al.  Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[7]  David Hailey,et al.  Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[8]  A. Culyer International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment , 2014 .

[9]  G. Slobogean,et al.  MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  L. Say,et al.  Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality , 2005, BMC medical research methodology.

[11]  D. Lawlor,et al.  Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns? , 2004, Complementary therapies in medicine.

[12]  P Corabian,et al.  THE USE AND IMPACT OF RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[13]  Christine Urquhart,et al.  Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross‐sectional sample , 2011, Research synthesis methods.

[14]  J. Sterne,et al.  How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[15]  Donna Ciliska,et al.  Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews , 2010, Implementation science : IS.

[16]  D. Moher,et al.  An alternative to the hand searching gold standard: validating methodological search filters using relative recall , 2006, BMC medical research methodology.

[17]  P. Royle,et al.  Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes , 2005, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[18]  Jos Kleijnen,et al.  What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. , 2012, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[19]  Julie Glanville,et al.  Identifying economic evaluations for health technology assessment , 2010, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[20]  P. Royle,et al.  Bmc Medical Research Methodology Open Access a Simplified Search Strategy for Identifying Randomised Controlled Trials for Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions: a Comparison with More Exhaustive Strategies , 2005 .

[21]  Arjen Hoogendam,et al.  Evaluation of PubMed filters used for evidence-based searching: validation using relative recall. , 2009, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[22]  Jesse A Berlin,et al.  Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  David Hailey,et al.  A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[24]  David Moher,et al.  Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[25]  David Moher,et al.  Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.