Objective To search through the Cochrane database of systematic reviews using the flag new search option to find out whether this strategy helps update revivews. Methods We chose the New search option in the advanced search in The Cochrane Library on Wiley InterScience (Issue 1, 2009), and input all hit citations to the ProCite software. We then looked through the `What’s new`,`History`, as well as `Appendices` on hit reviews in the Cochrane library one by one, and then added these related contents to thef ield of the ProCite in order to analyze the results. Results A total of 140 systematic reviews had the flag new search. Among them, the total new search frequency were 274, meaning frequency was 1.96/1; updated within two years were 58 (41.43); there were 61 reviews with `Appendices` (43.57%). The status of the chosen database among the 61 reviews with `Appendices` was as follows: most were from MEDLINE (56 reviews, 91.80%), next EMBASE (47 reviews, 77.05 %), and finally CENTRAL (45 reviews, 73.7%). Among the reviews with `Appendices`, most of them were not correctly labeled. Conclusion Although some Cochrane systematic reviews are updated in a timely fashion, there is some incomplete information, although it may be still helpful for researchers to look for new studies.
The steps of searching evidence were introduced. How to select computer retrieval systems and searching engines were discussed including evidence retrieval systems and other medical information retrieval systems, bibliography systems and full-text systems, metasearch engine systems and single search engine systems, as well as the engines for evaluating information and the general medical search engines.