Table 6 Characteristics of included reviews: data sources and number of studies
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 Unpublished studies and grey literature not included in review | 10 | Singapore and Australia |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[21] | 29 | 1988 to January 2005 | MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL + screening citations and references + Unpublished manuscripts were collected by approaching colleagues working in the field of pain among the elderly + abstract books of the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th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 |