Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:55:24.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collecting the Evidence Systematically: Ensuring That It Is Complete and Up-to-Date

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Murray Enkin  and
Jini Hetherington
Murray Enkin
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Jini Hetherington
Affiliation:
The U.K. Cochrane Centre
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A complete and comprehensive search of the relevant evidence is an essential step in the preparation of a scientific systematic review. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database consists of some 600 systematic reviews, based on almost 6,000 randomized or quasi-randomized trials of care during pregnancy and childbirth. As ascertainment from electronic search of the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE database was not complete, the mainstay of our search strategy was a systematic hand search of some 60 journals, beginning with volumes published in 1950. Additional references were obtained from the list of references in primary research reports and conference reports. A major effort was made to identify unpublished trials and to obtain unpublished data from published trials.

Type
Special Section: The Quality of the Medical Evidence: Is It Good Enough?
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Spring 1996 , pp. 276 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

REFERENCES

1.Chalmers, I., Hetherington, J., Newdick, M., et al. The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials: Developing a register of published reports of controlled trials. Controlled Clinical Trails, 1986, 7, 306–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Cochrane, A. L.Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972.Google Scholar
3.Dickersin, K., Min, Y-I. Publication bias: The problem that won't go away. Annals of the New York Academy of Science USA 1993, 703, 135–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Hetherington, J., Dickersin, K., Chalmers, I., & Meinert, C. L.Retrospective and prospective identification of published controlled trials: Lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics, 1989, 84, 374–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Jadad-Bechara, A. R.Meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials in pain relief. Unpublished PhD thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford, 1994.Google Scholar
6.Pregnancy and childbirth module: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In Enkin, M. W., Keirse, M. J. N. C., Renfrew, M. J., & Neilson, J. P. (eds.), Cochrane updates on disk. Oxford: Update Software, 1994.Google Scholar
7.Sackett, D. L.Bias in analytical research. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1979, 32, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar