Skip to content

Embase Literature Search Assignment

Advantages of using Scopus:

  • Includes PubMed/Medline, most but not all Embase content plus more.
  • Has useful ‘Cited by' links.
  • ‘View at Publisher' (when available) links are next to each record to easily access the full text. There is also a ‘Find Fulltext' button next to each record to help find the full text of the article.
  • Reference lists in a record are hyperlinked.
  • Allows proximity searching eg PRE/ and N/
  • Has links to patents and data sets (on top right menu bar of serch results)

Search traps:

  • There is no mapping to MeSH or other subject headings eg Emtree. It is not possible to search directly for MeSH terms in Scopus, as it is in Medline (Ovid) and PubMed, although it is possible to search for MeSH terms as keywords, ie as words that appear in the keywords section of a record.
  • Limits are minimal. There is not the extensive range of limits available in PubMed, Medline (Ovid) and Embase.

If I have access to Scopus, do I need Embase?
'Scopus includes most, but not all, Embase content, as well as the Embase index terms. Scopus searches focus on abstracts and citations, while a search in Embase provides additional insights as a result of the structured full-text indexing of content.

Since Scopus does not use Emtree to facilitate synonym mapping and hierarchical searches, it may retrieve significantly fewer results than Embase. For example, a Scopus search on "heart attack" misses records mentioning "myocardial infarction" or indexed using the Emtree term "heart infarction".

In addition, Embase subheadings are not available on Scopus, so searches cannot be focused in the same way. For example, it is not possible to limit drug searches to records focusing on adverse effects.'
Source: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/embase-biomedical-research/learn-and-support

1. Golder S, McIntosh HM, Duffy S, Glanville J. Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Health Info Libr J. 2006;23(1):3–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00634.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

2. Carlesso LC, Gross AR, Santaguida PL, Burnie S, Voth S, Sadi J. Adverse events associated with the use of cervical manipulation and mobilization for the treatment of neck pain in adults: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2010;15(5):434–44. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2010.02.006.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

3. Carlesso LC, Cairney J, Dolovich L, Hoogenes J. Defining adverse events in manual therapy: an exploratory qualitative analysis of the patient perspective. Man Ther. 2011;16(5):440–6. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2011.02.001.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

4. Carnes D, Mullinger B, Underwood M. Defining adverse events in manual therapies: a modified Delphi consensus study. Man Ther. 2010;15(1):2–6. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2009.02.003.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

5. Carnes D, Mars TS, Mullinger B, Froud R, Underwood M. Adverse events and manual therapy: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2010;15(4):355–63. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2009.12.006.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

6. Ernst E. Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2007;100(7):330–8. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

7. Rubinstein SM, Peerdeman SM, van Tulder MW, Riphagen I, Haldeman S. A systematic review of the risk factors for cervical artery dissection. Stroke. 2005;36(7):1575–80. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000169919.73219.30.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

8. Cassidy JD, Boyle E, Côté P, He Y, Hogg-Johnson S, Silver FL, et al. Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population-based case-control and case-crossover study. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(Suppl 1):176–83. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0634-9.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

9. Cagnie B, Vinck E, Beernaert A, Cambier D. How common are side effects of spinal manipulation and can these side effects be predicted? Man Ther. 2004;9(3):151–6. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2004.03.001.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

10. White A, Boon H, Alraek T, Lewith G, Liu J-P, Norheim A-J, et al. Reducing the risk of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM): Challenges and priorities. Eur J Integr Med. 2014;6(4):404–8. doi: 10.1016/j.eujim.2013.09.006.[Cross Ref]

11. Gouveia LO, Castanho P, Ferreira JJ. Safety of chiropractic interventions: a systematic review. Spine. 2009;34(11):E405–13. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a16d63.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

12. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276(8):637–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

13. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

14. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357(9263):1191–4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

15. Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(10):781–8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00009.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

16. Gorrell LM, Engel RM, Brown B, Lystad RP. The reporting of adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials-a systematic review. Spine J. 2016;9:1143–51. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.05.018.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

17. Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Maher CG. Indexing of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions: a comparison of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, hooked on evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed. Physiother. 2009;95(3):151–6. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2009.01.006.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

18. Michaleff ZA, Costa LO, Moseley AM, Maher CG, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, et al. CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. Phys Ther. 2011;91(2):190–7. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100116.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

19. Derry S, Loke YK, Aronson JK. Incomplete evidence: the inadequacy of databases in tracing published adverse drug reactions in clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1:7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-1-7.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

20. Elsevier. Embase Indexing Guide 2015 - A comprehensive guide to Embase indexing policy 2016 [cited November 24, 2016]. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/92104/Embase-indexing-guide-2015.pdf.

21. US National Library of Medicine. The MEDLINE indexing process: determining subject content: U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2016 [cited November 24, 2016]. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/meshtutorial/principlesofmedlinesubjectindexing/theindexingprocess/

22. US National Library of Medicine. Fact sheet: Medical Subject Headings (MeSH®): U.S. national library of medicine; 2016 [cited November 24, 2016]. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/mesh.html.

23. US National Library of Medicine. Medical Subject Headings 2017: U.S. National library of medicine; 2016 [cited November 24, 2016]. Available from: https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/#/fieldSearch.

24. Bergmann T. Chiropractic technique principles and procedures. 3. Elselvier Mosby: Missouri; 2011.

25. Herzog W. The biomechanics of spinal manipulation. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2010;14(3):280–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2010.03.004.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

26. Pickar JG. Neurophysiological effects of spinal manipulation. Spine J. 2002;2(5):357–71. doi: 10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00400-X.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

27. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

28. Cartwright N. Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties. 2007;2(1):11–20. doi: 10.1017/S1745855207005029.[Cross Ref]

29. Sibbald B, Roland M. Understanding controlled trials: why are randomised controlled trials important? BMJ. 1998;316(7126):201. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7126.201.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

30. Zorzela L, Golder S, Liu Y, Pilkington K, Hartling L, Joffe A, et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:f7668. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f7668.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

31. Pitkin RM. The importance of the abstract. Obstet Gynecol. 1987;70(2):267.[PubMed]

32. Ioannidis JA, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. JAMA. 2001;285(4):437–43. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.4.437.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

33. Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern M. 2009;169(19):1756–61. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.306.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

34. Turner L-A, Singh K, Garritty C, Tsertsvadze A, Manheimer E, Wieland LS, et al. An evaluation of the completeness of safety reporting in reports of complementary and alternative medicine trials. BMC Comp Alt Med. 2011;11(1):67. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-11-67.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

35. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations 2016 [cited November 3, 2016]. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/.

36. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Journals following the ICMJE recommendations. 2016 [cited November 3, 2016.]. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/journals-following-the-icmje-recommendations/.

37. Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1255–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02799-9.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

38. Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P, Kominski GF, Yu F, Adams AH. A randomized trial of chiropractic manipulation and mobilization for patients with neck pain: clinical outcomes from the UCLA neck-pain study. Am J Pub Health. 2002;92(10):1634–41. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.92.10.1634.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

39. Maiers M, Evans R, Hartvigsen J, Schulz C, Bronfort G. Adverse events among seniors receiving spinal manipulation and exercise in a randomized clinical trial. Man Ther. 2015;20(2):335–41. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2014.10.003.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

40. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350(9074):326–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02419-7.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

41. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):115–23. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.1.115.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

42. Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, Moulton K, Clark M, Fiander M, et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):138–44. doi: 10.1017/S0266462312000086.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

43. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]