Intended for healthcare professionals

Letters

Deputy editor of Clinical Evidence replies to letter

BMJ 2002; 324 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7336.545 (Published 02 March 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:545
  1. Giselle Jones, deputy editor (gjones{at}bmjgroup.com)
  1. Clinical Evidence, London WC1H 9JR

    EDITOR—As we are constantly striving to improve our processes at Clinical Evidence we are always interested to hear about “missed” studies, as described by Laursen in relation to the article from Clinical Evidence on acute asthma by FitzGerald, 1 2 because it allows us to check our search strategies. FitzGerald's piece does not include the Cochrane review by Travers et al merely because of its timing.3

    In the methods section the search date is stated as having been September 2000. When we carried out the search for the Issue 5 update for this chapter in September 2000 Travers et al's review had not been published. In fact, when we performed the update search in May 2001 for Issue 6 it had still not been published. It first appeared in Issue 2 of the Cochrane Library, 2001.

    When the next update search is performed we will search Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library from Issue 2 of 2001 onward. This will retrieve Travers et al's review, which will be incorporated into the next update.

    Although the eight month update cycle of Clinical Evidence means that a chapter may not include a recently published study, the explicit nature of the search date should make the reasons for any such omissions clear.

    References

    1. 1.
    2. 2.
    3. 3.