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.