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.
Footnotes
Dr Costa, Dr Moseley, Dr Maher, Dr Elkins, and Dr Sherrington provided concept/idea/research design. Ms Michaleff, Dr Costa, Dr Moseley, Dr Maher, Dr Herbert, and Dr Sherrington provided writing. Ms Michaleff, Dr Costa, and Dr Moseley provided data collection. Ms Michaleff, Dr Costa, Dr Moseley, and Dr Herbert provided data analysis. Dr Maher provided project management. Dr Moseley, Dr Maher, and Dr Sherrington provided fund procurement. Dr Maher provided facilities/equipment. Ms Michaleff, Dr Costa, Dr Moseley, Dr Maher, Dr Elkins, and Dr Sherrington provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission).
Some of the authors are developers of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). PEDro is funded by the Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales; the Motor Accidents Insurance Commission (Queensland, Victoria, Australia); the Victorian Transport Accidents Commission (Victoria, Australia); and physical therapy associations in Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Ms Michaleff holds a postgraduate award from the Australian government. Professor Maher, Associate Professor Herbert, and Dr Sherrington hold research fellowships funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.
- Received April 1, 2010.
- Accepted October 11, 2010.
