The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Cochrane library

Manufactured by Elsevier

The Cochrane Library is a collection of databases that provide high-quality, independent evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. It includes the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which contains systematic reviews and meta-analyses of primary research in human healthcare and health policy, and other databases that provide other types of high-quality, independent evidence to inform healthcare decision-making.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

5 protocols using cochrane library

1

Systematic Search of Relevant Research Databases

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
We identified published studies from BIOSIS Previews (ISI Web of Knowledge), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials. gov, Cochrane Library (Wiley Interscience), Dissertations & Theses Global (ProQuest), EMBASE (EMBASE. com), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), ScienceDirect (Elsevier) and Scopus (Elsevier) from inception to January 2017. There were no language restrictions. To optimise search criteria, we developed a detailed and comprehensive search strategy with an information specialist (MM) for each electronic database (online supplementary eMethods). EndNote V.X7 was used for deduplication (EndNote, Thomson Reuters).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Comprehensive Literature Search Strategy for Health Research

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The search strategy was developed by the authors and the electronic database searches were conducted by an academic librarian (EO). Searches were performed from 3 December to 5 December 2019 in the following databases: CINAHL (EBSCO); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to November 2019); OVID PsycINFO (1987 to November 2019); OVID Embase (1974 to November 2019); OVID AMED (1985 to November 2019); Cochrane Library (Wiley); Scopus (Elsevier); and Swemed. A combination of subject headings and text words for each element were used and adapted for the search strategy of each database. The full search strategy for CINAHL and Ovid MEDLINE is available from https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2688211. To enhance the coverage of relevant articles, the reference lists of identified review articles were reviewed for articles that had not been identified via the electronic search. Reference lists of included articles were also screened for relevant articles by the authors (AKMS, AAC and TS).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Groupthink in Health Teams: A Scoping Review

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Our research question was: ‘How is groupthink theory conceptualized, studied, and mitigated in the context of health professional teams conducting patient care?’ A scoping review of the literature was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist (Moher et al., 2010 (link)). A medical library information specialist (KP) performed a search through May 20, 2020 of the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Scopus (Elsevier), Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL (last four all EBSCOhost). Keywords used to retrieve articles and details of the specific database strategies are provided in the supplementary material. Search results were exported to Covidence, an online tool for screening.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

PRISMA Systematic Review Database

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
A large and growing body of literature has been conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The researchers collected all accessible literature existing through Cochrane Library (John Wiley & Sons), electronic databases Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (U.S. National Library of Medicine), Scopus, and Google Scholar up to June 2020.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Systematic Review: Renal Imaging Characteristics

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
A systematic literature search of PubMed (U.S. National Library of Medicine), Embase (Elsevier), and the Cochrane Library (John Wiley & Sons) electronic databases was performed during March of 2017. The search strategy (Appendix 1) used the following terms as they appeared in the title, abstract, or keyword list and used applicable medical subject headings: renal cell carcinoma, renal mass, renal lesion, DWI, apparent diffusion coefficient, signal loss, MRI, signal intensity, papillary, differentiation, classification, and characteristics. The date of the publication was set to be as early as January 2000, and the search was updated until May 1, 2017. There was no restriction on language of publication. The resulting abstracts were then cataloged by an investigator for further analysis. Full-text articles were then reviewed for eligibility based on our inclusion criteria, and final studies for inclusion were agreed on by consensus.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!