Tom there maybe/ you might find some useful stuff in the 
CMR http://cmr.cochrane.org/

http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/CMRHelp.html

Regards
Zbys

-- 
Zbys Fedorowicz
Director
The Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre
The Cochrane Collaboration
For information on the Bahrain branch see: 
http://bahrain.cochrane.org/en/index.html

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 10:43:07 +0200
  Tom Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> thanks for the useful advice. I am already working with 
>a librarian. For
> the reasons outlined, we are going to drop Cochrane, 
>though I have had a
> flick through their reviews.
> 
> With best wishes,
> Tom
> 
> On 5 April 2013 18:18, Fiona Morgan 
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Susan
>>
>> I couldn't agree with you more about the importance of 
>>including
>> experienced searchers in the systematic review team - if 
>>the search is no
>> good, then the entire review is flawed.
>>
>> However, I think you're slightly missing the point of 
>>what I said. I was
>> not suggesting the Cochrane Library isn't a good 
>>resource; merely that for
>> epidemiology reviews it isn't an appropriate one. The 
>>Cochrane Library is a
>> repository of high quality trials and reviews about the 
>>effectiveness and
>> cost effectiveness of different interventions. It 
>>doesn't include
>> observational research and that's why we don't  include 
>>it as a source for
>> epidemiology reviews.
>>
>> Whilst high quality searches that balance specificity 
>>and sensitivity may
>> not return many hits, why bother to build the search and 
>>go through the
>> exercise when it's not necessary? Surely part of the 
>>function of an
>> experienced searcher is to guide less experienced 
>>colleagues to appropriate
>> resources?
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Fiona Morgan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:        Susan Fowler <[log in to unmask]>
>> To:        Fiona Morgan <[log in to unmask]>
>> Cc:        "[log in to unmask]" <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> Date:        05/04/2013 16:48
>> Subject:        Re: Systematic reviews in epidemiology
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Tom:
>>
>> You can read about the Cochrane Library and all the 
>>resources it includes
>> (many more then just the database of systematic reviews) 
>>here: *
>> http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/AboutTheCochraneLibrary.html#HTA*<http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/AboutTheCochraneLibrary.html#HTA>
>>
>> Be sure and check out the list of Cochrane Groups 
>>included in the above
>> link. Those groups sometimes have already developed 
>>search strategies that
>> they have put through rigorous testing and validation 
>>and may
>> also recommend resources to use to search for your 
>>topic.
>>
>> I agree that it is best to work with a librarian - 
>>especially one trained
>> in systematic reviews. Really, we are exceptionally good 
>>at creating
>> thorough search strategies and including resources you 
>>may have never heard
>> of. A good librarian doesn't include terms blindly - 
>>they look up each
>> concept and term to be sure the terms they include are 
>>appropriate. They
>> search the literature for validated search strategies. 
>>They work hard to
>> strike an appropriate balance between precision and 
>>recall. If
>> the strategy is properly built and Cochrane Library is 
>>not appropriate
>> for the topic then searching in that set of resources 
>>wont return any hits
>> anyway.
>>
>> I got started working on systematic reviews at my 
>>institution when
>> researchers came to me after their reviews had been 
>>rejected for
>> publication for lack of thoroughness in searching. Don't 
>>let that happen to
>> you.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> --
>> Susan Fowler, MLIS
>> Medical Librarian
>>
>> Evidence at Becker:*
>> **http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/ebm* 
>><http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/ebm>
>>
>> Systematic Reviews Guide:*
>> **http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/SystematicReviews*<http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/SystematicReviews>
>>
>> Becker Medical Library, Washington University in St. 
>>Louis
>> 314-362-8092*
>> **[log in to unmask]* 
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Fiona Morgan 
>><*[log in to unmask]*<[log in to unmask]>>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Tom
>>
>> As others have commented, the Cochrane Library is about 
>>interventions and
>> therefore is not likely to be of value. The same is true 
>>for DARE (which is
>> searchable through the Cochrane Library). Even if you 
>>were searching for
>> interventions, the Cochrane specialized registers are 
>>not generally
>> available other than to authors aligned with specific 
>> Cochrane groups.
>>
>> When searching for epidemiological reviews , in addition 
>>to Medline,
>> Medline in Process and Embase, you should consider 
>>ASSIA, CINAHL, IBSS,
>> PsycINFO, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological 
>>Abstracts and the Web of
>> Knowledge databases (science and social science citation 
>>indexes and
>> conference proceeedings).
>>
>> It's also worth thinking about the kind of setting and 
>>population. There
>> could be useful area or country-specific sources and, if 
>>you're looking at
>> a population subset, eg children or older people, you 
>>might want to look at
>> databases like ChildData and AgeLine.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Fiona Morgan *
>> **[log in to unmask]* <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Systematic Reviewer
>> Support Unit for Research Evidence
>> Cardiff University
>>
>> Neuadd Meirionnydd 1st Floor
>> Heath Park
>>
>> Cardiff CF14 4YS
>> Tel: 029 20 687926
>>
>> Lecturer, Operating Department Practice
>> School of Healthcare Studies
>> Ty Dewi Sant Room 4.1
>> Heath Park
>> Cardiff CF14 4XN
>> Tel: 029 20 687721
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:        Tom Yates 
>><*[log in to unmask]*<[log in to unmask]>
>> >
>> To: 
>>       *[log in to unmask]*<[log in to unmask]>
>> Date:        04/04/2013 15:36
>> Subject:        Systematic reviews in epidemiology
>> Sent by:        "Evidence based health (EBH)" <*
>> [log in to unmask]*<[log in to unmask]>
>> >
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> I would value your advice. I am about to start a 
>>systematic review of
>> epidemiological studies. My exposure is time spent in 
>>certain indoor public
>> spaces. Is there much value in including Cochrane or 
>>Cochrane specialised
>> registers in the search strategy or are these only of 
>>value when searching
>> for intervention studies? I have quite general search 
>>terms and am wary
>> about including the Cochrane databases if they are not 
>>going to offer clear
>> advantages.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>