English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

It has been well documented that reaching beyond MEDLINE into a diversity of databases enhances search results [1–3], but a chronic question in comprehensive and systematic searching is how far, and where, to search [4]. When published in business or economics sources, articles focusing on cost outcomes of health and health policy interventions may not be indexed in the biomedical databases that are traditionally consulted for clinical systematic reviews [5]. The goal of this dual case study is to explore and document the significance of non-health sources, specifically databases that index economic research, in comprehensive searching for two systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policy interventions.  Due to ethical and logistical constraints, as well as lack of political will, controlled experimental studies of health policy interventions are rare [6]. The classic systematic review hierarchy of evidence may not apply to many policy reviews, as interventions of this type often can only be studied by using “natural experiments” and observational study designs [7]. Thus, systematic reviews of health policy interventions present methodological challenges to the investigators that are important for the librarian to be aware of—for example, the decision as to exactly which study designs or types of data are acceptable.  Once the inclusion and exclusion criteria are clearly defined, the librarian must determine which sources are likely to be most productive. Search strategies for health policy reviews necessarily require a broader approach than that used in a classic clinical systematic review search, as sources such as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and tools such as search filters for identifying randomized controlled trials will typically not be as fruitful for policy reviews as they are for reviews of therapeutic interventions. In an ideal world, one would always exhaustively search any source of possible relevance. However, when balancing time and resource constraints, it is useful for librarians to be aware of which sources are likely to provide the highest return on their investment.

Non-biomedical sources for systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policy