Urinary Incontinence & Female Athletes Systematic Review Search Strategy

Abstract

To identify studies to include or consider for this systematic review, the review team worked with a medical librarian (SB) to develop detailed search strategies for each database. The PRISMA-S extension was followed for search reporting. The medical librarian (SB) developed the search for PubMed (NLM) and translated the search for every database searched. The PubMed (NLM) search strategy was reviewed by the research team to check for accuracy and term relevancy, and all final searches were peer-reviewed by another medical librarian (JB) following the PRESS checklist. The databases included in this search are PubMed (NLM), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), CINAHL (Ebscohost), SPORTDiscus (Ebscohost), Sports Medicine & Education Index (ProQuest), and Cochrane Central (Wiley) using a combination of keywords and subject headings. A grey literature search included Clinical Trials (https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov) and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (https://trialsearch.who.int/) . All final searches were performed on November 1, 2023, by the librarian and were fully reported (SB). The full search strategies as reported by the librarian are provided in Appendix (___).

A summary of the search results from databases:

PubMed (NLM) from inception to 11/1/2023 (42 Results)

Embase (Elsevier) from inception to 11/1/2023 (88 Results)

Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics) from inception to 11/1/2023 (35 Results)

CINAHL (Ebscohost) from inception to 11/1/2023 (22 results)

SPORTDiscus with Full Text (Ebscohost) from inception to 11/1/2023 (28 results)

Sports Medicine & Education Index (ProQuest) from inception to 11/1/2023 (19 results)

Cochrane Central (Wiley) from inception to 11/1/2023 (9 results)

The search resulted in 270 studies and 92 duplicate studies were found and omitted by the librarian (SB) using the EndNote 20 duplicate identification strategy. This resulted in 178 records to screen from databases or registers. Studies were screened by title and abstract by two blinded and independent reviewers. If a tiebreaker was needed, a third reviewer was called in. This process was repeated for full text article screening and article selection.