INCREASING EFFICIENCY OF SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEWS: ARE MULTIPLE DATABASES NECESSARY?
Author(s)
Kassandra Schaible1, Monica Turner, MPH2;
1Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2Thermo Fisher Scientific, Philadelphia, PA, USA
1Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2Thermo Fisher Scientific, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are considered to be the highest quality of evidence given their reproducibility and comprehensiveness. When conducting SLRs where more rigorous methodology is required, such as for submission to health technology assessment, there are specific methods to follow including searching multiple literature review databases. However, this level of rigor may not always be necessary or possible. We sought to explore whether the publicly available database PubMed, which searches MEDLINE, is sufficient for less rigorous SLRs and whether the comprehensiveness of the database differs by topic.
METHODS: Search results of 15 oncology-related SLRs from the past 5 years were examined to identify the proportion of records that were available in MEDLINE versus Embase only. The included records of each SLR were also examined for this characteristic. Trends were explored based on topic (clinical, economic, or humanistic) and date of search.
RESULTS: Across the evaluated SLRs, over half of the records screened were Embase-only records regardless of topic. When considering the number of included articles, the proportion of Embase-only records ranged depending on indication and topic but was under 50% in most SLRs. The unique Embase-only records were majority, and in some instances all, conference abstracts, often also available through publicly accessible grey literature sources.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that PubMed may be sufficient for less rigorous SLRs, especially if supplemented with grey literature searches. Embase-only records retrieved through database searches tended to account for the majority of records to be screened, most of which were excluded during the screening process. Excluding these records from the total number to be screened can be considered where a large number of citations would otherwise be reviewed, offering a replicable alternative for research questions where potentially missing articles would not be expected to impact the conclusions of the review.
METHODS: Search results of 15 oncology-related SLRs from the past 5 years were examined to identify the proportion of records that were available in MEDLINE versus Embase only. The included records of each SLR were also examined for this characteristic. Trends were explored based on topic (clinical, economic, or humanistic) and date of search.
RESULTS: Across the evaluated SLRs, over half of the records screened were Embase-only records regardless of topic. When considering the number of included articles, the proportion of Embase-only records ranged depending on indication and topic but was under 50% in most SLRs. The unique Embase-only records were majority, and in some instances all, conference abstracts, often also available through publicly accessible grey literature sources.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that PubMed may be sufficient for less rigorous SLRs, especially if supplemented with grey literature searches. Embase-only records retrieved through database searches tended to account for the majority of records to be screened, most of which were excluded during the screening process. Excluding these records from the total number to be screened can be considered where a large number of citations would otherwise be reviewed, offering a replicable alternative for research questions where potentially missing articles would not be expected to impact the conclusions of the review.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
SA21
Topic
Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Literature Review & Synthesis
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas