What to use instead of NICE Evidence Search - some recommendations (sort of)

Amended a bit 13th June 2022 with more about Trip.

In an earlier post I searched NICE Evidence Search (site now closed) and then a number of other sources to see which other sources would find the same material.

I had found 27 results in NICE Evidence Search, searching vertigo epley.  

5 were systematic reviews from DARE, which I decided I was not too worried about, as DARE has not been updated for some time

Then there were results from PubMed, Cochrane, BestBets, Clinical Knowledge Summaries (CKS), four health organisations, Patient.info, NICE and the Royal Australian College of GPs.

Searching Cochrane itself found one more Cochrane review than NICE Evidence Search did.  So, more than NICE Evidence Search.

Searching PubMed itself and using the Systematic Review filter found 15 items (3 of which were versions of the same Cochrane review).  Again, more than NICE Evidence Search did.

The other sites were org.uk, except one health organisation (.org) and the RACGP (.org.au).

NICE is of course nice.org.uk.

Instead of NICE Evidence Search, I searched:

Google site:nhs.uk - this found many things not included in NICE Evidence Search, from the NHS nationally and from individual hospital trusts. 

Google site:.org - found material from American sites (not in NICE Evidence Search), plus one from cochrane.org (information about a review) and one from doi.org.

Google site:.org.uk - this found CKS and some of the health organisations, plus some other health organisations not in NICE Evidence Search. 

Google site:nice.org.uk - finds the two from CKS, but not the NICE guideline (which is actually a guideline on suspected neurological conditions rather than just vertigo).

The NICE website - finds the NICE guideline.

Trip - finds many results including both Cochrane reviews, CKS, one health organisation, plus the specific vertigo entry in the RACGP source (NICE Evidence Search linkeds to the whole resource).   It also finds guidelines, including a NICE one about benign paroxysmal positional  vertigo, and the NICE guideline on suspected neurological conditions.  And guidelines from other UK organisations (but not SIGN ones) and countries outside the UK.

Trip will also find some trials and primary research.  If you have Trip Pro (the NHS in England does), you will also find ongoing trials.

Pedro - finds 56 systematic reviews and trials.  Pedro is just physiotherapy, of course, so good for this topic.

So, now that NICE Evidence Search is gone, you may need to look in more places, or do more searches in one place, but you do find results that were not found in NICE Evidence Search.

Recommendations (sort of)

I think which places you look, so which sources you use, will depend on what you want and on the topic.

For systematic reviews and trials: PubMed, Cochrane, Trip, Pedro.

For guidelines: NICE (for their own guidelines), SIGN (for theirs), Trip.

For material from the NHS or health organisations: Google, specifying the domain.

For material from NICE: the NICE website, as well as Google.

What to use instead of NICE Evidence Search - a first thought

I have been promoting NICE Evidence Search much more systematically this year to "my" first year undergraduates in their first library session.   It is also on the resource lists I've made for each of their courses.  I like the idea that there is one source, where all the results have been evaluated by health information professionals, and I've suggested it's a good first place to search for any health topic.  

But NICE Evidence Search is closing at the end of March 2022.   So what to use instead?

NICE Evidence Search has two lists of sources, one of sites where some of the content is ingested automatically, another of sources which are searched manually.   The lists include national NHS sources, NICE, SIGN, a large number of charities, government bodies and more.   I had thought it included individual NHS trusts but I am not sure it does.   

So what does NICE Evidence Search find, and what can be found elsewhere?  

I searched NICE Evidence Search for vertigo epley to find things about the Epley Manoeuvre being used with people with vertigo.   There were 27 results, which I exported to EndNote.

There were:

Systematic reviews from DARE - 5

Systematic reviews from PubMed - 4

Cochrane reviews - 2

BestBets - 2

CKS - 2 (one entry is part of the other)

Patient.info - 2

Brain and Spine Foundation - 2

British Society of Audiology - 2

NICE guidelines - 1

Royal National Institute for Deaf People - 1

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners - 1 (but actually this is the whole of HANDI, the Handbook of Non Drug Interventions)

British Tinnitus Association - 1

Where else to look?

Searching Cochrane finds 3 and searching PubMed for systematic reviews (using the PubMed tick box filter) finds 15, 3 of which are versions of the same Cochrane review.  DARE is still there but has had nothing new added since 2015 and I have not been using it.

BestBets is .org, CKS is nice.org.uk, and the others ones in my last paragraph are .org.uk except the RACGP, .org.au.  

Google site:nhs.uk

None of the results from NICE Evidence Search are .nhs.uk - searching Google for vertigo epley site:nhs.uk finds the NHS Health A-Z, and a lot of material from individual NHS trusts.

Google site:.org

Googling vertigo epley site:.org finds information about one of the Cochrane reviews on cochrane.org, with a link to the review, and material from American sites like Johns Hopkins Medicine and the Cleveland Clinic, and at least one DOI, doi.org.

Google site:.org.uk

The same Google search with site:.org.uk finds CKS, and a little way down the list, the Brain and Spine Foundation and British Tinnitus Association but also some material that is not in NICE Evidence Search like the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and the Meniere's Association.

Google site:nice.org.uk

Googling vertigo epley site:nice.org.uk finds the two from CKS.  It doesn't seem to find the NICE Guideline, although searching the NICE site itself does (it is actually a guideline on suspected neurological conditions rather than just vertigo).

Trip

I searched Trip for vertigo epley and found many more results, including both Cochrane reviews, the CKS entry and one of the BSA items (under Clinical Guidelines - UK).   There are many results that are not in NICE Evidence Search.  One of them is the vertigo entry in HANDI (see above), others are guidelines from outside the UK.   There are also trials and primary research, not covered in NICE Evidence Search, and (if you have Trip Pro), ongoing trials.

Pedro

vertigo epley in Pedro finds 56 systematic reviews and trials.

So I wonder.  NICE Evidence Search is a way to find material from a range of sources, all in one go, and at the moment the alternative is to search in many separate places.   However, searching in those individual places does find other material too, some of which would certainly be useful for my students.   NICE Evidence Search does appear to be a good first place, but searching elsewhere does find other material.