Skip to main content

Table 1 Databases searched in 300 systematic reviews

From: Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?

Category

Name of database

Count (%)

Critically-appraised databases

Cochrane library

228 (76.0%)

DARE

14 (4.7%)

CENTRAL

101 (33.7%)

PEDro

7 (2.3%)

Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA)

6 (2.0%)

Indexing and abstracting databases

MEDLINE

236 (78.9%)

EMBASE

190 (63.5%)

PubMed

86 (28.7%)

CINAHL

52 (17.4%)

PsycINFO

24 (8.1%)

ERIC

12 (4.0%)

LILACS

12 (4.0%)

AMED Allied and Complementary Medicine

15 (5.0%)

HealthSTAR

6 (2.0%)

BIOSIS

6 (2.0%)

Chinese/ China Biological Medicine Database

5 (1.7%)

Citation searching

Scopus

16 (5.4%)

ISI Web of Science

8 (2.7%)

Trials registry

National Research Register

10 (3.3%)

Clinicaltrials.gov

9 (3.0%)

FDA Repository

3 (1.0%)

Online full-text journals

BioMed Central

4 (1.3%)

Web search

Google Scholar

8 (2.7%)

Hand searching

Conference proceedings

6 (2.0%)

  1. Note: Other databases (n = 19, searched in <1% of reviews) included PROQUEST, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, AEGIS, Popline and African Journals Online, Index for Australian Medical Literature, CBMdisc, Eastern Mediterranean Index, EBM Reviews, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), European Society, ExtraMed, Imbiomed, Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Scholars Portal, York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, International Pharmaceutical, and National Research Register.