Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T15:18:38.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health technology assessment in social care: A case study of randomized controlled trial retrieval

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2006

Susan E. Bayliss  and
Janine Dretzke
Susan E. Bayliss
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Janine Dretzke
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of search strategies in retrieving key documents for a technology assessment report (TAR) on a social care topic.

Methods: This study measured the differential yield of relevant studies from various information sources and evaluated strategies in different databases, with particular reference to capturing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as a study design.

Results: A combination of four major databases would have found all thirty-two key references. One database alone would have found 78 percent, with another two each locating 59 percent. Sixteen percent of the trials were unique references. In non–health care databases, more sensitive search strategies would have resulted in a higher yield of relevant studies, in part due to inconsistent indexing and in part to attempts to restrict searches to RCTs. Although additional terms could be used to increase the sensitivity of the original strategies, this raises the question of trading off time against exhaustiveness, given the greater number of irrelevant references likely to be retrieved.

Conclusions: A successful search for evidence on this social care topic would be possible using a combination of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and PsycINFO, supplemented by only limited use of supplementary databases. In areas such as social care where evidence-based research is not yet well established, attempts to replicate searches based on study design do not seem to be advisable, although this may be an area for future research.

Keywords

Information storage and retrievalDatabasesBibliographicTechnology assessmentBiomedicalSocial welfare
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 39 - 46
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, et al. 2003 How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 7: 1– 76.Google Scholar
Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. 2005, Appendix 5B. Highly sensitive search strategies for identifying reports of randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE: b2) Ovid MEDLINE. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5 (Updated May 2005). In: The Cochrane Library Issue 3, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Royle P, Milne R. 2003 Literature searching for randomised controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: Rapid versus exhaustive searches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 4: 591– 603.Google Scholar
Stevenson J. 2003 What everyone wants: An evaluation of the ZETOC service. SCONUL Newsletter. 28: 50– 53.Google Scholar