Skip to main content

Table 4 Reported and potential sources of citations not retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE (n/%)

From: Improving search efficiency for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: an exploratory study to assess the viability of limiting to MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference checking

Project Included studies not retrieved by search of both MEDLINE/EMBASE Sources of non-retrieved citations as reported in the reviews Non-retrieved citations identifiable from reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews Total identifiable from reported searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, plus reference checking of included studies and reviews Remaining citations published as abstracts only “Missing” citationsa
Holmes (2014) 14/51 Reference lists (11), WoS (2), Google (1) 13 50/51 (98 %) 0 1
Ward (2013) 6/32 Manufacturer (1), NR (5) 2 28/32 (88 %) 2 2
Simpson (2013) 1/44 NR (1) 0 43/44 (98 %) 0 1
Goodacre (2013) 6/40 WoS (4), CINAHL (1), personal contact (1) 5 39/40 (98 %) 0 1
Stevenson (2012) 5/17 WoS (3), Manufacturer (1), BIOSIS previews (1) 1 13/17 (76 %) 3 1
Cooper (2011) 7/45 WoS (3), BIOSIS previews (2), reference lists (1), PubMed (1) 0 38/45 (84 %) 5 2
Sutcliffe (2009) 1/30 WoS (1) 0 29/30 (97 %) 0 1
Pandor (2004) 6/15 Reference lists (4), WoS (1), NR (1) 3 12/15 (80 %) 2 1
Kaltenthaler (2004) 0/28 None 0 28/28 (100 %) 0 0
Total 46/302 (15 %) Reference lists (16), WoS (14), NR (7), BIOSIS (3), others (6) 24/46 (52 %) 280/302 (93 %) 12/46 (26 %) 10/46 (22 %)
  1. WoS Web of Science, NR not reported
  2. aCitations not retrieved by the reported searches of MEDLINE or EMBASE or included after reference checking of any of these retrieved citations or relevant reviews
Back to article page