Skip to main content

Table 6 Characteristics of included reviews: data sources and number of studies

From: Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools

Review ID Number of included studies* Search dates Databases searched Number of tools reviewed Country of origin
[25] 18 No data PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE 12 UK
[33] No data 1990 - July 2004 MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Health, and Psychosocial Instruments + electronic database of the National Guideline Clearinghouse + pain and gerontological conferences + personal reference databases of the authors. 10 USA
[34] No data No data MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMB Reviews 8 USA
[35] 23 1990-2010 CINAHAL, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycInfo, ScienceDirect, Wiley-Interscience, Mosby’s Nursing Consult, Web of Science, ProQuest + reference lists to identify additional studies. Unpublished studies and grey literature not included in review 10 Singapore and Australia
[36] 21 1990 - 2007 MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, Social Sciences Abstracts, and Ageline 11 USA
[30] 9 1994-2004 AHMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Psychlit, Ageinfo, Anchor housing, Index for thesis, Steinberg 9 UK
[24] No data 1980-2005 PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Cinahl, PiCarta 13 The Netherlands
[21] 29 1988 to January 2005 MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL + screening citations and references + Unpublished manuscripts were collected by approaching colleagues working in the field of pain among the elderly + abstract books of the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th International Association for the Study of Pain World Congresses screened for relevant publications 12 Lebanon and Netherlands
  1. Overview of the scope of the retrieval strategies (sources and periods) for studies of pain assessment tools, used in the reviews included in our meta-review. Information was missing for four of the reviews (no data available for extraction). * The number of included studies is possibly approximate. The reasons are twofold: 1) the number of included studies in each review is different for each tool and hard to aggregate in one number; 2) the studies included in each review may have reported one or more studies aimed at evaluating a tool – i.e. a number of included studies of ‘1’ may actually refer to a larger number of studies conducted.