Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Evidence synthesis · §2

Nationally registered neuropeptides and the retrievability of their evidence base — search strategy

Sources, search strings, screening flow and extraction procedure, reproduced so that the review can be repeated.

Document identifier
CEI-ES-017/2
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
1.1
Published
13 May 2026
Last reviewed
13 May 2026
Next review
13 Nov 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.17
Certainty
Very low
Cycle
2026 Q2
Review type
Methodological review
Search executed
29 Mar 2026

§2Search strategy

The search was executed on 29 March 2026 and re-run at each review. It is reproduced here in full so that it can be repeated. A review whose search cannot be repeated cannot be checked, and the Institute regards reproducing the strategy as a condition of publication rather than an appendix to it.

§2.1Sources searched

Table 2. Sources searched, with the coverage period of each.

SourceCoverageRecords
MEDLINE (Ovid)Inception to the search date318
Embase (Ovid)Inception to the search date226
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled TrialsCurrent issue at the search date255
ClinicalTrials.govAll records, including those without posted results165
WHO International Clinical Trials Registry PlatformAll records201
EU Clinical Trials RegisterAll records65
Regulatory assessment reports (FDA, EMA, MHRA, PMDA)Published review documents141
Sponsor clinical study reports where obtainableRequested; obtained only in part243
Record counts are per source before de-duplication and sum to more than the de-duplicated total in §2.3.

§2.2Search strategy

The strategy below is the MEDLINE (Ovid) version. Strategies for the other sources are translations of it, adapted to each source's controlled vocabulary and syntax, and preserving the same concept structure.

1   exp Synthetic ACTH/
2   semax.mp. OR selank.mp. OR thymalin.mp. OR epithalon.mp. [and further compound terms]
3   "Met-Glu-His-Phe-Pro-Gly-Pro".ti,ab,kf. OR "ACTH(4-7)-Pro-Gly-Pro".ti,ab,kf. OR "Thr-Lys-Pro-Arg-Pro-Gly-Pro".ti,ab,kf. OR "tuftsin analogue".ti,ab,kf. OR "thymalin".ti,ab,kf. OR "thymus polypeptide extract".ti,ab,kf. OR "epitalon".ti,ab,kf. OR "AEDG peptide".ti,ab,kf.
4   1 OR 2 OR 3
5   exp Cognitive performance and neuroprotection/ OR exp Immune modulation and adjunctive immunotherapy/ OR exp Biological ageing and healthspan endpoints/
6   cognition.ti,ab,kf. OR immune modulation.ti,ab,kf. OR ageing.ti,ab,kf.
7   5 OR 6
8   4 AND 7
9   randomized controlled trial.pt. OR controlled clinical trial.pt. OR randomi#ed.ti,ab. OR placebo.ti,ab. OR clinical trials as topic.sh. OR randomly.ti,ab. OR trial.ti.
10   exp animals/ NOT humans.sh.
11   8 AND 9 NOT 10
12   remove duplicates from the preceding set

No language restriction was applied. No date restriction was applied. Records identified only through a registry and carrying no posted results are counted separately in the flow below rather than being excluded silently, following the search-strategy consultation.

§2.3Screening flow

Table 3. Screening flow from records identified to studies included.

StageRecords
Records identified from database searching1,099
Records removed as duplicates249
Records screened on title and abstract850
Records excluded at title and abstract820
Full-text reports assessed for eligibility30
Full-text reports excluded, with reasons25
Studies included in the qualitative synthesis5
Studies included in the quantitative synthesis0
Two reviewers screened independently at both stages. Agreement at title and abstract exceeded the pre-specified threshold; disagreement at full text was resolved by a third reviewer without recourse to the effect estimates.

§2.4Data extraction and certainty assessment

  • Extraction was performed independently in duplicate onto a piloted form. The extracted data are published in full at §3, at the level of the individual outcome and study, with the source of each value identified. That practice was adopted following a public submission that a review whose extracted data are not published cannot be checked.
  • Risk of bias was assessed at the level of the individual study and outcome.
  • Certainty was assessed across the five domains recorded at §4, with the reason for each downgrade recorded against its domain.
  • Clinical study reports were requested for every contributing trial. The outcome of each request, including refusals, is recorded in the amendment log.
Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.