Research Synthesis Methods

Locating qualitative studies in dementia on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO: A comparison of search strategies

Journal Article

Background

Qualitative research in dementia improves understanding of the experience of people affected by dementia. Searching databases for qualitative studies is problematic. Qualitative‐specific search strategies might help with locating studies.

Objective

To examine the effectiveness (sensitivity and precision) of 5 qualitative strategies on locating qualitative research studies in dementia in 4 major databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL).

Methods

Qualitative dementia studies were checked for inclusion on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Five qualitative search strategies (subject headings, simple free‐text terms, complex free‐text terms, and 2 broad‐based strategies) were tested for study retrieval. Specificity, precision and number needed to read were calculated.

Results

Two hundred fourteen qualitative studies in dementia were included. PsycINFO and CINAHL held the most qualitative studies out the 4 databases studied (N = 171 and 166, respectively) and both held unique records (N = 14 and 7, respectively). The controlled vocabulary strategy in CINAHL returned 96% (N = 192) of studies held; by contrast, controlled vocabulary in PsycINFO returned 7% (N = 13) of studies held. The broad‐based strategies returned more studies (93‐99%) than the other free‐text strategies (22‐82%). Precision ranged from 0.061 to 0.004 resulting in a number needed to read to obtain 1 relevant study ranging from 16 (simple free‐text search in CINAHL) to 239 (broad‐based search in EMBASE).

Conclusion

Qualitative search strategies using 3 broad terms were more sensitive than long complex searches. The controlled vocabulary for qualitative research in CINAHL was particularly effective. Furthermore, results indicate that MEDLINE and EMBASE offer little benefit for locating qualitative dementia research if CINAHL and PSYCINFO are also searched.

Related Topics

Related Publications

Related Content

Site Footer

Address:

This website is provided by John Wiley & Sons Limited, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ (Company No: 00641132, VAT No: 376766987)

Published features on StatisticsViews.com are checked for statistical accuracy by a panel from the European Network for Business and Industrial Statistics (ENBIS)   to whom Wiley and StatisticsViews.com express their gratitude. This panel are: Ron Kenett, David Steinberg, Shirley Coleman, Irena Ograjenšek, Fabrizio Ruggeri, Rainer Göb, Philippe Castagliola, Xavier Tort-Martorell, Bart De Ketelaere, Antonio Pievatolo, Martina Vandebroek, Lance Mitchell, Gilbert Saporta, Helmut Waldl and Stelios Psarakis.