1 / 22

Cochrane and Embase: evidence-based medicine update

Why focus on EBM?. Considerable interest amongst librarians in EBMUS move to embrace Comparative Effectiveness Research (Auston 2010)Systematic reviews key component of EBMClinical trials (esp. RCTs) key component of systematic reviews. Why me?. Elsevier wanted user view

temple
Download Presentation

Cochrane and Embase: evidence-based medicine update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Cochrane and Embase: evidence-based medicine update Carol Lefebvre Senior Information Specialist UK Cochrane Centre Elsevier Sunrise Seminar Sunday 23 May 2010 MLA, Washington DC

    2. Why focus on EBM? Considerable interest amongst librarians in EBM US move to embrace Comparative Effectiveness Research (Auston 2010) Systematic reviews key component of EBM Clinical trials (esp. RCTs) key component of systematic reviews

    3. Why me? Elsevier wanted user view – not sales pitch Long-standing interest in Embase Long-standing ‘agenda’ between Cochrane and Elsevier ‘Independent voice’ (Lack of) competing interests no ‘editorial control’ / no ‘incentives’ My views – not (necessarily) those of The Cochrane Collaboration or the UKCC - not Elsevier’s views!

    4. Relevance of Embase to searching in the EBM context The (inevitable!) comparisons with MEDLINE c. 2,000 journals in Embase not indexed in MEDLINE Focus on indexing – especially drugs EMTREE ‘twice as large as MeSH’ Length of abstracts (?) Indexing of articles in press (since 2008) Not just inclusion of ‘in-process records’ Indexing of conference abstracts (since 2009)

    5. Relevance of Embase to searching in the EBM context UKCC project to identify RCTs in EMBASE – since 1997(Lefebvre 2008) c. 100,000 RCTs identified by handsearching c. 400,000 Embase records published 1980 to date (some 1974 to date) All records now searchable (free-text only) in CENTRAL

    6. Relevance of Embase to searching in the EBM context The contribution of Embase records to CENTRAL – RCTs in Embase published in 2005 – language analysis MEDLINE+/Embase Embase ‘unique’ Chinese 257 320 Dutch 3 13 Italian 11 15 Persian (Farsi) 0 6 Turkish 12 50

    7. Relevance of Embase to searching in the EBM context The contribution of Embase records to CENTRAL (Lefebvre 2008) - key messages: ‘EMBASE is a rich source of reports of randomized trials that are either not included in MEDLINE or not indexed as trials in MEDLINE, especially reports in some languages other than English’. ‘In addition to searching CENTRAL, people looking for reports of randomized trials should search EMBASE, as well as MEDLINE, for reports published in recent years that have not yet been considered for inclusion in CENTRAL’.

    8. Cochrane and Embase – historical overview Oct 1992 - UKCC founded Nov 1992 - appointed as Information Specialist Dec 1992 - ‘targeted’ Elsevier at ONLINE Jan 1993 - Elsevier attended mtg at UKCC no indexing term for RCTs in EMTREE Sept 1993 - Randomized Controlled Trial added to EMTREE (for both ‘topic’ and ‘study types’) Early 1994 - Elsevier undertook to index clinical trials ‘even more consistently’ in future (Profile 1994)

    9. Cochrane and Embase – historical overview Mid 1996 - Elsevier introduced new database platform Dec 1996 - Elsevier requested further mtg - permission granted to re-publish RCTs from Embase in CENTRAL 1997 - UKCC commenced searches of EMBASE for RCTs Oct 1997 - first reports of Embase RCTs published in CENTRAL for the Cochrane Colloquium in Amsterdam

    10. Cochrane and Embase – historical overview 2004 - Systematic Review added to EMTREE (for both ‘topic’ and ‘study types’) NLM had declined our request to add Systematic Review to MeSH in 2002 ‘unable to give indexers a consistent set of principles for distinguishing a systematic review from an academic review’ (personal correspondence with Stuart Nelson, Head of MeSH, NLM)

    11. Cochrane and Embase – historical overview 2007 – Elsevier launch Embase Classic backfiles for 1947-1973 3,00 journals 1.8 million records Abstracts for 90% of records Indexed with current EMTREE

    12. Cochrane and Embase – historical overview 2008 – Elsevier start indexing conference abstracts in Embase Currently 115,000 conf abs in Embase Full-text of each abstract is searchable All indexed (automatically) using EMTREE Plan to add c. 100,000 new conf abs yearly From c. 3,000 journals / From c. 300 conferences In ‘all drug and clinical topics’ from Embase Records will be added to other platforms

    13. Cochrane and Embase – historical overview 2008 – Elsevier start indexing conference abstracts in Embase (cont.) Each conf summarized by searchable ‘review’ record Conf name, date and location all searchable Identifiable under the publication type ‘Conference Abstract’

    14. Cochrane and Embase – historical overview 2009 - Elsevier start indexing articles in press in Embase Not just adding ‘records in progress’ All articles indexed with EMTREE 200? - Elsevier offer Wiley access to EMTREE for CENTRAL 200? - Wiley decline EMTREE due to proposed changes in the development of CENTRAL!

    15. Cochrane and Embase – historical overview Dec 2009 – Meeting with Michael Rai, VP Pharma Development Group, Elsevier “make me a business case for splitting ‘topic’ terms from ‘study type’ terms” Early 2010 – invited to give this presentation During 2010 – various teleconferences and phone mtgs with Elsevier staff

    16. Cochrane and Embase – where are we now? Changes in indexing - agreed From Jan 2011 (with new EMTREE) ‘topic’ terms will be differentiated from ‘study type’ terms (in line with current MeSH) For 8 clinical trial terms (incl RCT) For Meta-analysis and for Systematic Review Exact formulation still under discussion

    17. Cochrane and Embase – where are we now? Changes in indexing - agreed Meta-analyses will not automatically be indexed as systematic reviews ‘Meta-analysis’ will not be limited to clinical trials Topic terms such as ‘RCT as topic’ will be indexed whether ‘major’ or ‘minor’ importance Clinical trial will also be used for animal studies, where appropriate ‘Human’ scope to be extended from ‘biological studies’

    18. Cochrane and Embase – ‘Wish-list’ / ‘Pipeline’ / ‘Under Discussion’ ‘Wish-list’ / ‘Pipeline’ Retractions, errata etc to be indexed as ‘Retracted Publication’ – in line with MeSH RCTs identified by the UKCC to be re-indexed in Embase (for all vendors) – like MEDLINE

    19. Cochrane and Embase – ‘Wish-list’ / ‘Pipeline’ / ‘Under Discussion’ Under discussion; Definitions and scope notes – in all vendors? Entry weeks only searchable in Ovid for rolling 2 years – but fully searchable on Elsevier’s platform

    20. Cochrane and Embase – the future? Future relationship between Cochrane and Elsevier Future for Embase w.r.t EBM Future for Embase in other areas

    21. References Auston I. NLM resources for informing Comparative Effectiveness Research. NLM Technical Bulletin. 2010 Mar-Apr;(373):e17 Lefebvre C, Eisinga A, McDonald S, Paul N. Enhancing access to reports of clinical trials published world-wide – the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2008;5:13. http://www.ete-online.com/content/5/1/13 PROFILE: Excerpta Medica Newsletter 1994, 11:2

    22. END Questions? Elsevier booth #209

More Related