Key result
Combining EMBASE and Cochrane identifies ~88% of hypertension systematic reviews.
Why the study?
Reliable retrieval of systematic reviews for hypertension depends on database indexing scope, and it is unclear how many databases need to be searched for comprehensive identification.
Researchers conducting systematic reviews should search multiple databases, as no single database provides complete coverage of the literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Single-database searches risk incomplete hypertension evidence; extends methodological standards requiring multi-database strategies for systematic reviews.
Rathbone et al. (2016) studied Hypertension (n=400). Bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Cochrane, DARE, MEDLINE, PubMed Health, Epistemonikos, TRIP) vs. Single database search was evaluated on Sensitivity for identifying relevant systematic reviews. No single bibliographic database identified all relevant systematic reviews for hypertension, with EMBASE achieving the highest sensitivity at 69%, while searching both EMBASE and Cochrane identified 88%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: