CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions

Zoe A. Michaleff, Leonardo O.P. Costa, Anne M. Moseley, Christopher G. Maher, Mark R. Elkins, Robert D. Herbert, Catherine Sherrington

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Many bibliographic databases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions. One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) has the most complete indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro. Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic databases. Design. This study was an audit of bibliographic databases. Methods. Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of randomized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic reviews published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions. Eight databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched for each trial report. The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each database was calculated. Results. The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the databases were as follows: CENTRAL, 95%; PEDro, 92%; PubMed, 89%; EMBASE, 88%; CINAHL, 53%; AMED, 50%; Hooked on Evidence, 45%; and PsycINFO, 6%. Almost all of the trial reports (99%) were found in at least 1 database, and 88% were indexed by 4 or more databases. Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single database only (2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed). Limitations. The results are only applicable to searching for English-language published reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions. Conclusions. The 4 most comprehensive databases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE. Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these databases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive. PEDro, unlike the other 3 most complete databases, is specific to physical therapy, so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved. Researchers could use CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive searches for randomized trials in physical therapy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)190-197
Number of pages8
JournalPhysical Therapy
Volume91
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

PubMed
Randomized Controlled Trials
Databases
Bibliographic Databases
Therapeutics
Language
Research Personnel
Delivery of Health Care
Research

Cite this

Michaleff, Zoe A. ; Costa, Leonardo O.P. ; Moseley, Anne M. ; Maher, Christopher G. ; Elkins, Mark R. ; Herbert, Robert D. ; Sherrington, Catherine. / CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. In: Physical Therapy. 2011 ; Vol. 91, No. 2. pp. 190-197.
@article{df0f434f8fd742459d41b63f0b63922f,
title = "CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions",
abstract = "Background. Many bibliographic databases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions. One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) has the most complete indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro. Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic databases. Design. This study was an audit of bibliographic databases. Methods. Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of randomized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic reviews published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions. Eight databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched for each trial report. The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each database was calculated. Results. The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the databases were as follows: CENTRAL, 95{\%}; PEDro, 92{\%}; PubMed, 89{\%}; EMBASE, 88{\%}; CINAHL, 53{\%}; AMED, 50{\%}; Hooked on Evidence, 45{\%}; and PsycINFO, 6{\%}. Almost all of the trial reports (99{\%}) were found in at least 1 database, and 88{\%} were indexed by 4 or more databases. Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single database only (2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed). Limitations. The results are only applicable to searching for English-language published reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions. Conclusions. The 4 most comprehensive databases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE. Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these databases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive. PEDro, unlike the other 3 most complete databases, is specific to physical therapy, so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved. Researchers could use CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive searches for randomized trials in physical therapy.",
author = "Michaleff, {Zoe A.} and Costa, {Leonardo O.P.} and Moseley, {Anne M.} and Maher, {Christopher G.} and Elkins, {Mark R.} and Herbert, {Robert D.} and Catherine Sherrington",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2522/ptj.20100116",
language = "English",
volume = "91",
pages = "190--197",
journal = "Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association",
issn = "0031-9023",
publisher = "American Physical Therapy Association",
number = "2",

}

CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. / Michaleff, Zoe A.; Costa, Leonardo O.P.; Moseley, Anne M.; Maher, Christopher G.; Elkins, Mark R.; Herbert, Robert D.; Sherrington, Catherine.

In: Physical Therapy, Vol. 91, No. 2, 01.02.2011, p. 190-197.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions

AU - Michaleff, Zoe A.

AU - Costa, Leonardo O.P.

AU - Moseley, Anne M.

AU - Maher, Christopher G.

AU - Elkins, Mark R.

AU - Herbert, Robert D.

AU - Sherrington, Catherine

PY - 2011/2/1

Y1 - 2011/2/1

N2 - Background. Many bibliographic databases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions. One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) has the most complete indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro. Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic databases. Design. This study was an audit of bibliographic databases. Methods. Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of randomized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic reviews published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions. Eight databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched for each trial report. The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each database was calculated. Results. The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the databases were as follows: CENTRAL, 95%; PEDro, 92%; PubMed, 89%; EMBASE, 88%; CINAHL, 53%; AMED, 50%; Hooked on Evidence, 45%; and PsycINFO, 6%. Almost all of the trial reports (99%) were found in at least 1 database, and 88% were indexed by 4 or more databases. Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single database only (2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed). Limitations. The results are only applicable to searching for English-language published reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions. Conclusions. The 4 most comprehensive databases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE. Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these databases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive. PEDro, unlike the other 3 most complete databases, is specific to physical therapy, so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved. Researchers could use CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive searches for randomized trials in physical therapy.

AB - Background. Many bibliographic databases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions. One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) has the most complete indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro. Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic databases. Design. This study was an audit of bibliographic databases. Methods. Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of randomized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic reviews published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions. Eight databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched for each trial report. The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each database was calculated. Results. The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the databases were as follows: CENTRAL, 95%; PEDro, 92%; PubMed, 89%; EMBASE, 88%; CINAHL, 53%; AMED, 50%; Hooked on Evidence, 45%; and PsycINFO, 6%. Almost all of the trial reports (99%) were found in at least 1 database, and 88% were indexed by 4 or more databases. Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single database only (2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed). Limitations. The results are only applicable to searching for English-language published reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions. Conclusions. The 4 most comprehensive databases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE. Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these databases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive. PEDro, unlike the other 3 most complete databases, is specific to physical therapy, so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved. Researchers could use CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive searches for randomized trials in physical therapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952833711&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2522/ptj.20100116

DO - 10.2522/ptj.20100116

M3 - Article

VL - 91

SP - 190

EP - 197

JO - Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association

JF - Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association

SN - 0031-9023

IS - 2

ER -