a nursing qualitative systematic review required MeDlINe and CINaHl for study identification. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:20–5

Abstract Objective: Analyze the number and the relevance of references retrieved from CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to perform a nursing systematic review. Study Design: A search strategy for the review topic was designed according to thesaurus terms. The study analyzes (1) references with abstract, (2) overlap between databases, (3) reference relevance, (4) relevance agreement between experts, and (5) reference accessibility. Results: Bibliographic search retrieved 232 references: 16% (37) in CINAHL, 68% (157) in MEDLINE, and 16% (38) in EMBASE. Of these, 72% (164) were references retrieved with an abstract: 14% (23) in CINAHL, 70% (115) in MEDLINE, and 16% (26) in EMBASE. Overlap was observed in 2% (5) of the references. Relevance assessment reduced the number of references to 43 (19%): 12 (34.3%) in CINAHL, 31 (19.7%) in MEDLINE, and none in EMBASE (Z ϭ Ϫ1.97; P ϭ .048). Agreement between experts achieved a maximum Cohen's κ of 0.76 (P Ͻ .005). References identified in CINAHL were the most difficult to obtain (χ 2 ϭ 3.9; df ϭ 1; P ϭ .048). Conclusions: To perform a quality bibliographic search for a systematic review on nursing topics, CINAHL and MEDLINE are essential databases for consultation to maximize the accuracy of the search.