November 8, 2014
J Dermatol. 2013 Apr;40(4):237. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.12150.
Reference Type: Journal Article
Record Number: 4489Author: Futamura, M., Thomas, K. S., Grindlay, D. J., Doney, E. J., Torley, D. and Williams, H. C.
Title: Mapping systematic reviews on atopic eczema–an essential resource for dermatology professionals and researchers
Journal: PLoS One
Short Title: Mapping systematic reviews on atopic eczema–an essential resource for dermatology professionals and researchers
Alternate Journal: PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic)
Accession Number: 23505516
Keywords: Databases, Factual
Periodicals as Topic
Review Literature as Topic
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Many research studies have been published on atopic eczema and these are often summarised in systematic reviews (SRs). Identifying SRs can be time-consuming for health professionals, and researchers. In order to facilitate the identification of important research, we have compiled an on-line resource that includes all relevant eczema reviews published since 2000. METHODS: SRs were searched for in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE and NHS Evidence. Selected SRs were assessed against the pre-defined eligibility criteria and relevant articles were grouped by treatment category for the included interventions. All identified systematic reviews are included in the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) database (www.greatdatabase.org.uk) and key clinical messages are summarised here. RESULTS: A total of 128 SRs reviews were identified, including three clinical guidelines. Of these, 46 (36%) were found in the Cochrane Library. No single database contained all of the SRs found. The number of SRs published per year has increased substantially over the last thirteen years, and reviews were published in a variety of clinical journals. Of the 128 SRs, 1 (1%) was on mechanism, 37 (29%) were on epidemiology, 40 (31%) were on eczema prevention, 29 (23%) were on topical treatments, 31 (24%) were on systemic treatments, and 24 (19%) were on other treatments. All SRs included searches of MEDLINE in their search methods. One hundred six SRs (83%) searched more than one electronic database. There were no language restrictions reported in the search methods of 52 of the SRs (41%). CONCLUSIONS: This mapping of atopic eczema reviews is a valuable resource. It will help healthcare practitioners, guideline writers, information specialists, and researchers to quickly identify relevant up-to-date evidence in the field for improving patient care.