Physiotherapy
Volume 95, Issue 3 , Pages 151-156, September 2009

Indexing of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions: a comparison of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed

  • Anne M. Moseley

      Affiliations

    • The George Institute for International Health, The University of Sydney, PO Box M201, Missenden Road, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9657 0385; fax: +61 2 9657 0301.
    • ,
  • Catherine Sherrington

      Affiliations

    • The George Institute for International Health, The University of Sydney, PO Box M201, Missenden Road, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia
    • ,
  • Mark R. Elkins

      Affiliations

    • Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia
    • ,
  • Robert D. Herbert

      Affiliations

    • The George Institute for International Health, The University of Sydney, PO Box M201, Missenden Road, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia
    • ,
  • Christopher G. Maher

      Affiliations

    • The George Institute for International Health, The University of Sydney, PO Box M201, Missenden Road, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia

published online 27 April 2009.

Abstract 

Objective

To compare the comprehensiveness of indexing the reports of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions by eight bibliographic databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed).

Design

Audit of bibliographic databases.

Methods

Two hundred and eighty-one reports of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions were identified by screening the reference lists of 30 relevant systematic reviews published in four consecutive issues of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 3, 2007 to Issue 2, 2008). AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed were used to search for the trial reports. The number of trial reports indexed in each database was calculated.

Results

PEDro indexed 99% of the trial reports, CENTRAL indexed 98%, PubMed indexed 91%, EMBASE indexed 82%, CINAHL indexed 61%, Hooked on Evidence indexed 40%, AMED indexed 36% and PsycINFO indexed 17%. Most trial reports (92%) were indexed on four or more of the databases. One trial report was indexed on a single database (PEDro).

Conclusions

Of the eight bibliographic databases examined, PEDro and CENTRAL provide the most comprehensive indexing of reports of randomised trials of physiotherapy interventions.

Keywords: Randomised controlled trial, Physiotherapy (specialty), Databases, Bibliographic, Indexing, Survey

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0031-9406(09)00026-1

doi:10.1016/j.physio.2009.01.006

Physiotherapy
Volume 95, Issue 3 , Pages 151-156, September 2009

Article Tools