Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology.

Background: Failure to perform a comprehensive search when designing a systematic review (SR) can lead to bias, reducing the validity of review's conclusions.

Objective: We examined the frequency and choice of databases used by reviewers in clinical neurology.

Methods: Ninety-five SRs and/or meta-analyses were located across five prominent neurology journals between 2008 and 2014.

Systematic Reviewers in Clinical Neurology Do Not Routinely Search Clinical Trials Registries.

We examined the use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses from clinical neurology. A review of publications between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 from five neuroscience journals (Annals of Neurology, Brain, Lancet Neurology, Neurology, and The Neuroscientist) was performed to identify eligible systematic reviews. The systematic reviews comprising the final sample were independently appraised to determine if clinical trials registries had been included as part of the search process.