Non-biomedical sources for systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policy

Greyson, Devon L. Non-biomedical sources for systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policy. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2010, vol. 98, n. 1, pp. 85-87. [Journal article (Print/Paginated)]

[img]
Preview
PDF
Greyson-NonBiomedSources-JMLA-2010.pdf

Download (172Kb) | Preview

English abstract

It has been well documented that reaching beyond MEDLINE into a diversity of databases enhances search results, but a chronic question in comprehensive and systematic searching is how far, and where, to search. When published in business or economics sources, articles focusing on cost outcomes of health and health policy interventions may not be indexed in the biomedical databases that are traditionally consulted for clinical systematic reviews. This dual case study explores and documents the significance of non-health sources, specifically databases that index economic research, in comprehensive searching for two systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policy interventions.

Item type: Journal article (Print/Paginated)
Keywords: searching, systematic reviews, systematic searching, health policy, pharmaceutical policy
Subjects: D. Libraries as physical collections. > DK. Health libraries, Medical libraries.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HL. Databases and database Networking.
Depositing user: Devon Greyson
Date deposited: 21 Apr 2010
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:16
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/14484

References

"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

1. Kastner M, Straus S, Goldsmith CH. Estimating the

horizon of articles to decide when to stop searching in

systematic reviews: an example using a systematic review of

RCTs evaluating osteoporosis clinical decision support

tools. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007 Oct 11:389–93.

2. Conn VS, Isaramalai S, Rath S, Jantarakupt P,

Wadhawan R, Dash Y. Beyond MEDLINE for literature

searches. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2003 Jun;35(2):177–82. DOI:

10.1111/j.1547-5069.2003.00177.x.

3. Beahler CC, Sundheim JJ, Trapp NI. Information retrieval

in systematic reviews: challenges in the public health arena.

Am J Prev Med. 2000 May;18(4, suppl 1):6–10.

4. Stevinson C, Lawlor DA. Searching multiple databases

for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns?

Complement Ther Med. 2004 Dec;12(4):228–32.

5. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds., Cochrane handbook for

systematic reviews of interventions [Internet]. Version 5.0.1.

The Cochrane Collaboration; Sep 2008 [cited 14 Jul 2009].

,http://www.cochrane-handbook.org..

6. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate

the effectiveness of health care. Br Med J. 1996 May

11;312(7040):1215–8.

7. Petticrew M, Cummins S, Ferrell C, Findlay A, Higgins C,

Hoy C, Kearns A, Sparks L. Natural experiments: an

underused tool for public health? Public Health. 2005

Sep;119(9):751–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2004.11.008.

8. Morgan S, Hanley G, Greyson D. Comparison of tiered

formularies and reference pricing policies: a systematic

review. Open Med [Internet]. 2009 Aug;3(3):131–9 [cited 19

Aug 2009]. ,http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view

/270/254/..

9. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Drummond M, Eisenstein E,

Mallender J, McDaid D, Vale L, Walker D, The Campbell &

Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CCEMG). Economics

methods in Cochrane systematic reviews of health

promotion and public health related interventions. BMC

Med Res Methodol. 2006 Nov;6:55. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-

6-55.

10. Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K,

Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care

management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy.

2005 Jul;10(suppl 1):35–48. DOI: 10.1258/1355819054308549.


Actions (login required)

View Item View Item