@article{ref1,
title="Searching for systematic reviews of the effects of social and environmental interventions: a case study of children and obesity",
journal="Journal of the Medical Library Association",
year="2010",
author="Woodman, Jenny and Harden, Angela and Thomas, Jay C. and Brunton, Jeff and Kavanagh, Jennifer M. and Stansfield, Claire",
volume="98",
number="2",
pages="140-146",
abstract="SETTING: Although an important part of the evidence base in health, systematic reviews are not always easy to find. Difficulties are compounded when interventions under review are &quot;social and environmental&quot; (that is, targeting wider determinants of health). The authors explored searches from a descriptive map containing thirty-two systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of social and environmental interventions for childhood obesity. QUESTIONS: Which sources give the highest yield of relevant reviews per 100 records? What is the value of searching databases that index literature beyond the &quot;health&quot; arena when looking for data on the effectiveness of social and environmental interventions? METHODS: The authors analyzed search results from nineteen databases and calculated the precision and the relative and unique contribution of each source. RESULTS: Searches of specialist systematic review databases-Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), and Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-had the highest precision, although MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO located many additional reviews. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be searched for health-related reviews. Searches of education, transportation, social policy, and social sciences databases did not identify additional reviews. Searching websites and bibliographies was important. CONCLUSIONS: Searches for review-level evidence could profitably start with the specialist review databases. Searches of the major health-related databases are essential, but database searching beyond them may not identify much additional evidence. Internet and hand-search remain important sources of reviews not found elsewhere. Comparison of the results with previous research suggests that appropriate sources for locating primary and secondary evidence may be different.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1536-5050",
doi="10.3163/1536-5050.98.2.006",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.98.2.006"
}