How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for clinical practice guidelines: database selection and search strategy development (part 2/3)

References

• McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Optimal search strategies for detecting cost and economic studies in EMBASE. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, et al. Evidence synthesis, economics and public policy. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):126–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sassi F, Archard L, McDaid D. Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations: how systematic can we afford to be? Med Care. 2002;40(5):387–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins M. Evaluation of methodological search filters – a review. Health Inf Libraries J. 2004;21(3):148–163.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alton V, Eckerlund I, Norlund A. Health economic evaluations: how to find them. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(04):512–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Lib Assoc. 2005;93(1):74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated march 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: www.handbook.cochrane.org.
   Google Scholar
• van Mastrigt GAPG, Hiligsmann M, Arts JJC, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for clinical practice guidelines (part 1 of 3). Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246960. [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt GAPG, Evers SMAA, et al. Review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy. Submitted.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 5 Identifying the evidence: literature searching and evidence submission. In: Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction-and-overview
   Google Scholar
• Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(18):E839–E842.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, et al. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):525–531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 7 Incorporating economic evidence. In: Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lefebyre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins J, Green S, Editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, et al. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):617–626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt GAPG, Redekop WK, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3 of 3). Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246961. [Epub ahead of print].
   Google Scholar
• HEED: Health Economic Evaluations Database Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470510933
   Google Scholar
• News. Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/
   Google Scholar
• White VJ, Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, et al. A statistical approach to designing search filters to find systematic reviews: objectivity enhances accuracy. J Inf Sci. 2001;27(6):357–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, et al. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(9):867–873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Systematic reviews: identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. Bmj. 1994;309(6964):1286–1291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brettle AJ, Long AF, Grant MJ, et al. Searching for information on outcomes: do you need to be comprehensive? Quality in Health Care. 1998;7(3):163–167.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morton S, Levit L, Berg A, et al. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BMR. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-EF. Available from: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov
   Google Scholar
• Shea B, Grimshaw J, Wells G, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for Reviews Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York(UK): CRD, University of York; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, et al. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(9):1076–1084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Service providers and search interfaces. Available from: http://www.htai.org/vortal/?q=node/927
   Google Scholar
• Fröschl B, Bornschein B, Brunner-Ziegler S, et al. Methodenhandbuch für health technology assessment version 1.2012. Wien: Gesundheit Österreich GmbH (GÖG); 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Glanville J, Paisley S. Identifying economic evaluations for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(04):436–440. Available from: http://hta.lbg.ac.at/uploads/tableTool/UllCmsPage/gallery/Methodenhandbuch.pdf
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari Sari A. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD); 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Standard operating procedure for production of evidence notes (version 2.0). Edinburgh: Healthcare Improvement Scotland; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Standard operating procedure for production of technologies scoping reports (version 1.0). Edinburgh (Scotland): Healthcare Improvement Scotland; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• National Health and Medical Research Council. How to compare the costs and benefits: evaluation of the economic evidence. Canberra (Australia): National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); 2001.
   Google Scholar
• NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. SIGN 50 – a guideline developer’s handbook. Edinburgh(Scotland): NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS); 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Kristensen F, Sigmund H. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen (Denmark): Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA), National Board of Health (NBoH); 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Cleemput I, Van Den Bruel A, Kohn L, et al. Search for evidence & critical appraisal: health technology assessment (HTA). Brussels (Belgium): Belgian Federal Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Shemilt I, Mugford M, Byford S, et al. Incorporating economics evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2008;449–480. Available from: www.handbook.cochrane.org.
   Google Scholar
• Mathes T, Walgenbach M, Antoine S-L, et al. Methods for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations a systematic review, comparison, and synthesis of method literature. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(7):826–840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resources. Available from: http://www.c-cemg.org/home/resources
   Google Scholar
• Porta MS. International epidemiological A: a dictionary of epidemiology. 5th ed. /edn ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, et al. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2. Art. No.: MR000010. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000010.pub3. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000010.pub3/epdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CRD Database. Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/
   Google Scholar
• Science citation index expanded. Available from; http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/scholarly-scientific-research/scholarly-search-and-discovery/science-citation-index-expanded.html
   Google Scholar
• Eady AM, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. PsycINFO search strategies identified methodologically sound therapy studies and review articles for use by clinicians and researchers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(1):34–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löhönen J, Isohanni M, Nieminen P, et al. Coverage of the bibliographic databases in mental health research. Nord J Psychiatry. 2010;64(3):181–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ovid MEDLINE. Available from: gateway.ovid.com/autologin.html
   Google Scholar
• Embase. Available from: www.embase.com
   Google Scholar
• EconLit. Available from: https://www.aea-web.org/econlit/index.php
   Google Scholar
• Web of science. Available from: https://apps.webofknowledge.com/UA_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&SID=3AbDfUY7pV3cFFrEDlg&preferencesSaved=
   Google Scholar
• Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J, Non-inferiority of the Erasmus MC exhaustive search method: An inter-organizational comparison of the speed and quality of librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews. Submitted
   Google Scholar
• McGowan J. For expert literature searching, call a librarian. CMAJ: Can Med Assoc J. 2001;165(10):1301–1302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bramer WM, Milic J, Mast F. Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using endnote. J Med Lib Assoc. accepted for publication. 2017;105(1).
   Google Scholar
• Boeker M, Motschall E, Vach W. Literature search methodology for systematic reviews: conventional and natural language processing enabled methods are complementary (letter commenting on: J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:191-9). J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:253–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausner E, Guddat C, Hermanns T, et al. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: validation showed the noninferiority of the objective approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(2):191–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsevier. A comparison of MeSH® and Emtree®. Elsevier; 2015. Available from: http://supportcontent.elsevier.com/Support%20Hub/Embase/Files%20&%20Attachements/4685-Embase_White%20Paper_Comparison%20of%20Emtree%20and%20MeSH_July%202015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beale S, Duffy S, Glanville J, et al. Choosing and using methodological search filters: searchers’ views. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31(2):133–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, et al. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1(6):447–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glanville J. Development and testing of search filters to identify economic evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Canada (Ottawa): Agence canadienne des médicaments et des technologies de la santé; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Boynton J, Glanville J, McDaid D, et al. Identifying systematic reviews in MEDLINE: developing an objective approach to search strategy design. J Inf Sci. 1998;24(3):137–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camosso-Stefinovic J. Developing objectively derived search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE. MSci thesis Loughborough: Loughborough University, Department of Information and Library Studies; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Improving efficiency and confidence in systematic literature searching. Available from: http://de.slideshare.net/wichor
   Google Scholar
• Russell R, Chung M, Balk EM, et al. Issues and challenges in conducting systematic reviews to support development of nutrient reference values: workshop summary: nutrition research series. Vol. 2. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2009
   Google Scholar
• Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, et al. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PICO search. Available from: https://www.embase.com/#picoSearch/default
   Google Scholar
• Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):944–952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Home. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/
   Google Scholar
• The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group search filter resource. Available from: https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home
   Google Scholar
• Glanville J, Kaunelis D, Mensinkai S. How well do search filters perform in identifying economic evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(04):522–529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filters to find economic evaluations. Available from: https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/filters-to-find-i
   Google Scholar
• McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. PRESS peer review electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline explanation and elaboration (PRESS E&E). Ottawa: CADTH; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Lavis JN, et al. Optimal search strategies for detecting health services research studies in MEDLINE. Can Med Assoc J. 2004;171(10):1179–1185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Finding what works in health care standards for systematic reviews. Washington(D.C.): National Academies Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Sarawagi S, Bhamidipaty A. Interactive deduplication using active learning. In: Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: ACM. 2002: 269–278.
   Google Scholar
• Miller MC. Reference management software: a review of endnote plus, reference manager, and pro-cite. MD Comput. 1994;11(3):161–168.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• WorldCat. Available from: http://www.worldcat.org/
   Google Scholar
• Bramer W, Holland L, Mollema J, et.al. Removing duplicates in retrieval sets from electronic databases: comparing the efficiency and accuracy of the Bramer-method with other methods and software packages. 2014. Available from: http://www.bmi-online.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/bramer-presentation-Removing-duplicates-in-retrieval-sets-from-electronic-databases-zonder-demo.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jiang Y, Lin C, Meng W, et al. Rule-based deduplication of article records from bibliographic databases. Database. 2014;2014:bat086.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Qi X, Yang M, Ren W, et al. Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases in systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71838.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 2016;104(3):240.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins J, Deeks JJ. Chapter 7: selecting studies and collecting data. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510 [updated March 2011]. Higgins J, Deeks JJ, Editors. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall C, Brereton P. Systematic review toolbox: a catalogue of tools to support systematic reviews. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering: 2015: ACM; 2015: 23.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-9, W64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausner E, Waffenschmidt S. Response to letter by Boeker et al. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: further issues regarding the objective and conceptual approaches. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:255–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update? Lancet. 2006;367(9514):881–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):224–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmadzai N, Newberry SJ, Maglione MA, et al. A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2(1):1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 2014;11(2):e1001603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsertsvadze A, Chen Y-F, Moher D, et al. How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously? Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elliott J, Sim I, Thomas J, et al. #CochraneTech: technology and the future of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;9:Ed000091.
   Google Scholar
• Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, et al. The automation of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2013;346:f139
   Google Scholar
• Topfer L-A, Parada A, Menon D, et al. Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15(02):297–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson M, De Bruijn B, Urquhart C, et al. Complementary approaches to searching MEDLINE may be sufficient for updating existing systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435616300166
   Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford (London): Oxford University Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford (London): Oxford university press; 2015.
   Google Scholar