Background: Systematic literature searches are the cornerstone of systematic reviews. In this study, we evaluated database coverage of randomized clinical trials for central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC).
Methods: We searched 12 databases (BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central, Current Contents Connect, Data Citation Index, Derwent Innovations Index, EMBASE, KCI-Korean Journal Database, MEDLINE, PubMed, SciELO Citation Index, and Web of Science Core Collection) on 10 April 2023 for randomized clinical trials for CSC. After identifying all eligible studies across all databases, we investigated the coverage of these studies within each database, including the coverage of any combination of two databases.
Results: The 12 databases yielded 848 records for screening, of which 76 were randomized clinical trials for CSC. No single database provided full coverage. The most comprehensive coverage was provided by EMBASE (88%), the Cochrane Central (87%), and PubMed (75%). A combined search in the Cochrane Central and PubMed led to complete coverage (100%) while reducing the number of records for screening from 848 to 279.
Conclusions: Systematic review search design should include multiple databases. For randomized clinical trials for CSC, the combination of the Cochrane Central and PubMed provides an excellent balance between coverage and workload.
Keywords: biomedical literature database; central serous chorioretinopathy; evidence synthesis methodology; indexing; randomized clinical trials.