Searching for qualitative health research required several databases and alternative search strategies: a study of coverage in bibliographic databases.

OBJECTIVE Retrieving the qualitative literature can be challenging but the number and specific choice of databases are key factors. The aim of the present study is to provide guidance for the choice of databases for retrieving qualitative health research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Seventy-one qualitative systematic reviews, from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, including 927 qualitative studies, were used to analyse the coverage of the qualitative literature in nine bibliographic databases. RESULTS The results show that 94.4% of the qualitative studies are indexed in at least one database, with a lower coverage for publication types other than journal articles. Maximum recall with two databases is 89.1%, with three databases recall increases to 92% and maximum recall with four databases is 93.1%. The remaining 6.9% of the publications consists of 1.3% scattered across five databases and 5.6% that are not indexed in any of the nine databases used in this study. CONCLUSION Retrieval in one or a few - although well-selected - databases does not provide all the relevant qualitative studies. The remaining studies needs to be located using several other databases and alternative search strategies.

[1]  D. Richards Handsearching still a valuable element of the systematic review , 2008, Evidence-Based Dentistry.

[2]  Margarete Sandelowski,et al.  The Challenges of Searching for and Retrieving Qualitative Studies , 2003, Western journal of nursing research.

[3]  Maria J Grant,et al.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[4]  Ghazala Mir,et al.  Searching for religion and mental health studies required health, social science, and grey literature databases. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  Aron Shlonsky,et al.  Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research , 2012 .

[6]  T. Hoffmann,et al.  A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[7]  A. Booth,et al.  Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[8]  Maryam Ahmadi,et al.  COMPARISON OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASES IN RETRIEVING INFORMATION ON TELEMEDICINE , 2014 .

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

[10]  A. Booth Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[11]  Paul Levay,et al.  The Contributions of MEDLINE, Other Bibliographic Databases and Various Search Techniques to NICE Public Health Guidance , 2015 .

[12]  Christopher W. Jones,et al.  Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[13]  M. Clarke,et al.  Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials. , 2002, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[14]  S. Bayliss,et al.  Where and how to search for information on the effectiveness of public health interventions--a case study for prevention of cardiovascular disease. , 2014, Health information and libraries journal.

[15]  Kate Ashton,et al.  Effectiveness of Search Strategies for Qualitative Research About Barriers and Facilitators of Program Delivery , 2011, Evaluation & the health professions.

[16]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[17]  David Ogilvie,et al.  Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go? , 2005, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[18]  T. Chen,et al.  Meta-synthesis of qualitative research: the challenges and opportunities , 2016, International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy.

[19]  Su Golder,et al.  What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[20]  Hans Lund,et al.  Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews – are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[21]  Matt Vassar,et al.  Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology , 2017, Health information and libraries journal.

[22]  F. Mair,et al.  Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[23]  Zachary Munn,et al.  Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation , 2015, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[24]  Mary McDiarmid,et al.  Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014. , 2017, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[25]  Martin Boeker,et al.  Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[26]  Liz Dennett,et al.  VALUE OF DATABASES OTHER THAN MEDLINE FOR RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS , 2014, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[27]  Catherine Sherrington,et al.  Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[28]  Kate Flemming,et al.  Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  Claire Stansfield,et al.  The selection of search sources influences the findings of a systematic review of people’s views: a case study in public health , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[30]  Tina Miller,et al.  Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies , 2004, BMC medical research methodology.

[31]  Kate Flemming,et al.  Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: evaluation of three strategies. , 2007, Journal of advanced nursing.

[32]  Karen Francis,et al.  Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences: Methodologies, Methods and Processes , 2013 .

[33]  Matthew E Falagas,et al.  Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses , 2007, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[34]  S. Golder,et al.  THE CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION SOURCES TO IDENTIFY ADVERSE EFFECTS OF A MEDICAL DEVICE: A CASE STUDY USING A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF SPINAL FUSION , 2014, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[35]  T. Trikalinos,et al.  Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[36]  Su Golder,et al.  Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[37]  Judith Green,et al.  Qualitative methods for health research , 2004 .

[38]  Megan Nuspl,et al.  The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[39]  David Moher,et al.  Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[40]  H. Williams,et al.  Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology , 2006, The British journal of dermatology.

[41]  Zachary Munn,et al.  What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[42]  Su Golder,et al.  Most systematic reviews of adverse effects did not include unpublished data. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[43]  Jérémie F. Cohen,et al.  Should we search Chinese biomedical databases when performing systematic reviews? , 2015, Systematic Reviews.