How to Improve Your Systematic Review Search: What Public Health Professionals Need to Know

by Mandy Morgan June 9, 2025

If you’ve ever tackled a systematic review, you know how important it is to find all the relevant research. But did you know that many reviews fall short just because they don’t search enough databases? A groundbreaking 2017 study by Bramer and colleagues shows that your search strategy might be missing key studies—unless you’re searching smarter.

Here’s what public health professionals need to know from this research, and how it can help make your reviews stronger, more accurate, and more useful.

Why This Study Matters

The paper, Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews, looked at how well different databases performed when used in real-world systematic reviews. Most previous studies only looked at whether a database contains an article. This study asked a better question: did the article actually show up in the search results?

They analyzed 58 published reviews and found 1,746 included studies from database searches. Notably, approximately 17% of the studies were identified in a single database, with Embase yielding the highest number of unique results.

The authors then tested combinations of databases to find the best mix for maximum recall (that’s the percentage of relevant studies found by your search).

The Best Database Combo for Public Health Reviews

Based on the findings, here’s the winning combination:

• Embase
• MEDLINE
• Web of Science
• Google Scholar

Using all four, they captured over 98% of the relevant studies in the reviews they analyzed. Even more impressive, this combo hit 100% recall in 72% of cases.

If you only use MEDLINE and Embase? You’ll get close (around 93%)—but you risk missing important papers. And if you skip Embase or Web of Science entirely? Your odds drop sharply.

What This Means for Public Health Researchers

If you’re conducting systematic reviews in public health, especially on topics like interventions, social determinants, or cross-sector programs, you need to think beyond the basics.

Public health topics are often interdisciplinary, touching on medicine, social science, policy, and behavior. That makes it even more likely that important research is scattered across multiple databases.

This study shows:

• Embase is essential for medical and public health topics, but it’s not always freely available.
• Google Scholar, while harder to search precisely, can find full-text articles that other databases miss.
• Web of Science is often overlooked, but it adds serious value.
• Specialized databases (like PsycINFO or CINAHL) are great additions if your topic fits—think mental health or nursing care.

Practical Takeaways

1. Use at least four databases. Don’t stop at PubMed. If you want to find as much relevant literature as possible, you need to go further.

2. Think about your topic. If your review focuses on behavioral health, don’t forget PsycINFO. Doing a review on community health workers? CINAHL might have hidden gems.

3. Collaborate with a librarian or information specialist. An experienced librarian conducted the searches for this study. A skilled searcher makes a big difference.

4. Be transparent. Always report which databases you used and why. This builds trust and improves replicability.

Final Thoughts

Systematic reviews are the backbone of evidence-based public health. But they’re only as strong as your search strategy. Thanks to this study, we now know that using the right combination of databases—especially Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar—can significantly improve your chances of finding the full picture.

Want your systematic reviews to make an impact? Start with a smarter search.

Don’t Let Science Pass You By

Public health breakthroughs and threats are happening fast.  Missing one update could mean missing the chance to act, advocate, or lead. Stay sharp, stay informed—with our weekly science brief, trusted by changemakers.

✅ Subscribe now—it’s free and essential.
✅ Share this blog to grow the circle of informed action.