Premium
[P2–095]: ANALYSIS OF NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE‐RELATED PATHOLOGY IN THE RETINA AND OLFACTORY BULB OF RODENT MODELS
Author(s) -
Neddens Joerg,
LopezPardo Ainara,
Flunkert Stefanie,
HutterPaier Birgit,
Niederkofler Vera
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.744
Subject(s) - olfactory bulb , retina , neuropathology , neuroscience , pathology , olfactory system , biology , dementia , piriform cortex , visual cortex , retinal , central nervous system , disease , medicine , biochemistry
Background:Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and other high quality studies are crucial to policy and evidence-based medicine. Systematic reviews synthesize and critically appraise burgeoning areas of investigation to make them digestible to a variety of audiences. However, the number of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly and they can be challenging to identify. To improve the accessibility of this information we developed EMANATE: a searchable database of all published systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant to dementia. Methods: Initial database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were conducted from inception until August 2016, using a combination of keywords and subject headings for dementia and systematic reviews without date or language restrictions. Titles and abstracts were independently screened for inclusion by two pairs of reviewers. Full-text were obtained for records where eligibility could not be determined based on title and abstract, and any discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer.We included only completed systematic reviews with a defined research question, explicitly described search strategy, and defined inclusion and exclusion criteria assessing evidence related to dementia (including all-cause dementia, dementia subtypes, mild cognitive impairment, global and domain-specific cognition, and subjective cognitive complaints). Review protocols, narrative reviews and meeting abstracts were excluded. Results:We initially screened titles and abstracts of 23,607 records. We included 2,302 systematic reviews based on title and abstract screening, and identified 376 further records for full-text review (see Figure). The database is being continually updated through biannual database searches and automated daily search alerts set up for MEDLINE, CINAHL, and CDSR. At present, more than 2,350 systematic reviews are included in EMANATE with around 700 including a meta-analysis. EMANATE is currently available to interested researchers as an EndNote library. Conclusions: EMANATE is a rich source for researchers, funders, clinicians and policymakers that offers quick