 |
 |
Hi Jon, Sterne, Bartlett, Jueni and Egger presented a paper on this in Oxford in July 2000. It addresses your question in an indirect but efficient way. The answer does not seem to be clearcut in a particular review. see http://www.ihs.ox.ac.uk/csm/symp2000.html Jon Brassey wrote: > > I'm looking into the efficiency of literature searching for systematic reviews. > > My feeling is that generally the majority of relevant literature can be found relatively quickly and easily by using Medline and other electronic databases. > > The harder (and more time consuming) workof a literature search is following up citations, grey literature searches etc. However, this hardwork tends to find relatively few contributions compared to the electronic databases. > > Does this seem reasonable and if so does anyone know of any studies that have looked into this? > > Ta > > Jon -- ************************************************ Gerben ter Riet, MD, PhD Reviews Manager NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York, Heslington York YO10 5DD United Kingdom Tel: + 1904 433121 FAX: + 1904 433661 CRD: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/welcome.htm Dept. Epidemiology Maastricht University: http://www-epid.unimaas.nl %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%