Print

Print
Hi Ahmed,
 
I'm more interested in the 2) question.  I appreciate that any studies found in systematic reviews are not in medline (and/or PubMed) but - in reality, does it make a huge amount of difference?  The reference found by Julie (http://www.hta.ac.uk/project/1099.asp) suggests (and I've only based this on the summary) that it doesn't make a big difference.  They state:
 
Systematic reviews that are based on a search of English language literature that is accessible in the major bibliographic databases will often produce results that are close to those obtained from reviews based on more comprehensive searches that are free of language restrictions.
 
I imagine the article will unpick the medline/pubmed versus other 'major bibliographic databases' but I may be disappointed.
 
BW
 
jon


 
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Ahmed Abou-Setta, M.D. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Jon,

 

For clarification, do you mean ‘studies included in PubMed but that are not Medline-indexed’ or do you mean ‘studies found in other databases (e.g. Embase, Central, Cinahl, etc.) but that are not Medline-indexed’?

 

Both questions are valid and in my mind could be:

 

1)      What is the difference between Medline and Pubmed?

2)      Why should be search outside Medline?

 

Ahmed

 

 

From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon Brassey
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Medline based systematic review

 

Hi All,

 

I apologise if this turns out to be a stupid question.  But can people point me to any systematic review based meta-analysis that has been repeated with all non-Medline articles removed?  In other words you're comparing a meta-analysis based on 'all' RCTs versus those just in Medline. 

 

Best wishes

 

jon
--

Jon Brassey

TRIP Database

Find evidence fast

 

 




--
Jon Brassey
TRIP Database
http://www.tripdatabase.com
Find evidence fast