Skip to main content
. 2013 May 28;2:36. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-36

Table 1.

Databases searched in 300 systematic reviews

Category Name of database Count (%)
Critically-appraised databases
Cochrane library
228 (76.0%)
DARE
14 (4.7%)
CENTRAL
101 (33.7%)
PEDro
7 (2.3%)
Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA)
6 (2.0%)
Indexing and abstracting databases
MEDLINE
236 (78.9%)
EMBASE
190 (63.5%)
PubMed
86 (28.7%)
CINAHL
52 (17.4%)
PsycINFO
24 (8.1%)
ERIC
12 (4.0%)
LILACS
12 (4.0%)
AMED Allied and Complementary Medicine
15 (5.0%)
HealthSTAR
6 (2.0%)
BIOSIS
6 (2.0%)
Chinese/ China Biological Medicine Database
5 (1.7%)
Citation searching
Scopus
16 (5.4%)
ISI Web of Science
8 (2.7%)
Trials registry
National Research Register
10 (3.3%)
Clinicaltrials.gov
9 (3.0%)
FDA Repository
3 (1.0%)
Online full-text journals
BioMed Central
4 (1.3%)
Web search
Google Scholar
8 (2.7%)
Hand searching Conference proceedings 6 (2.0%)

Note: Other databases (n = 19, searched in <1% of reviews) included PROQUEST, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, AEGIS, Popline and African Journals Online, Index for Australian Medical Literature, CBMdisc, Eastern Mediterranean Index, EBM Reviews, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), European Society, ExtraMed, Imbiomed, Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Scholars Portal, York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, International Pharmaceutical, and National Research Register.