139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15649667)
1. A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification.
Subirana M; Solá I; Garcia JM; Gich I; Urrútia G
J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Jan; 58(1):20-5. PubMed ID: 15649667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for the nurse researcher.
Burnham J; Shearer B
Med Ref Serv Q; 1993; 12(3):45-57. PubMed ID: 10132288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Searching Embase and MEDLINE by using only major descriptors or title and abstract fields: a prospective exploratory study.
Bramer WM; Giustini D; Kleijnen J; Franco OH
Syst Rev; 2018 Nov; 7(1):200. PubMed ID: 30458825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Selecting a database for literature searches in nursing: MEDLINE or CINAHL?
Brazier H; Begley CM
J Adv Nurs; 1996 Oct; 24(4):868-75. PubMed ID: 8894905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension.
Rathbone J; Carter M; Hoffmann T; Glasziou P
Syst Rev; 2016 Feb; 5():27. PubMed ID: 26862061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study.
Bramer WM; Giustini D; Kramer BM
Syst Rev; 2016 Mar; 5():39. PubMed ID: 26932789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases.
Topfer LA; Parada A; Menon D; Noorani H; Perras C; Serra-Prat M
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1999; 15(2):297-303. PubMed ID: 10507189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Database selection and data gathering methods in systematic reviews of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus - an explorative study.
Justesen T; Freyberg J; Schultz ANØ
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Apr; 21(1):94. PubMed ID: 33941105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Locating qualitative studies in dementia on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO: A comparison of search strategies.
Rogers M; Bethel A; Abbott R
Res Synth Methods; 2018 Dec; 9(4):579-586. PubMed ID: 29080334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses.
Slobogean GP; Verma A; Giustini D; Slobogean BL; Mulpuri K
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Dec; 62(12):1261-7. PubMed ID: 19364634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Searches for randomized controlled trials of drugs in MEDLINE and EMBASE using only generic drug names compared with searches applied in current practice in systematic reviews.
Waffenschmidt S; Guddat C
Res Synth Methods; 2015 Jun; 6(2):188-94. PubMed ID: 26099486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of drug interaction document citation in nine on-line bibliographic databases.
Barillot MJ; Sarrut B; Doreau CG
Ann Pharmacother; 1997 Jan; 31(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 8997464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Patient safety and systematic reviews: finding papers indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL.
Tanon AA; Champagne F; Contandriopoulos AP; Pomey MP; Vadeboncoeur A; Nguyen H
Qual Saf Health Care; 2010 Oct; 19(5):452-61. PubMed ID: 20457733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough.
Suarez-Almazor ME; Belseck E; Homik J; Dorgan M; Ramos-Remus C
Control Clin Trials; 2000 Oct; 21(5):476-87. PubMed ID: 11018564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology.
Vassar M; Yerokhin V; Sinnett PM; Weiher M; Muckelrath H; Carr B; Varney L; Cook G
Health Info Libr J; 2017 Jun; 34(2):156-164. PubMed ID: 28383159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree?
Wilkins T; Gillies RA; Davies K
Can Fam Physician; 2005 Jun; 51(6):848-9. PubMed ID: 16926954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?
Wright K; Golder S; Lewis-Light K
Syst Rev; 2015 Jun; 4():104. PubMed ID: 26227391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison and evaluation of nine bibliographic databases concerning adverse drug reactions.
Biarez O; Sarrut B; Doreau CG; Etienne J
DICP; 1991 Oct; 25(10):1062-5. PubMed ID: 1803790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A validation study revealed differences in design and performance of search filters for qualitative research in PsycINFO and CINAHL.
Rosumeck S; Wagner M; Wallraf S; Euler U
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Dec; 128():101-108. PubMed ID: 32987157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comprehensive search string informed by an operational definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine for systematic bibliographic database search strategies.
Ng JY; Dhawan T; Dogadova E; Taghi-Zada Z; Vacca A; Fajardo RG; Masood HA; Patel R; Sunderji S; Wieland LS; Moher D
BMC Complement Med Ther; 2022 Jul; 22(1):200. PubMed ID: 35897034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
