An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies

被引:418
作者
Sampson, Margaret [1 ,2 ]
McGowan, Jessie [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Cogo, Elise [1 ,3 ,5 ]
Grimshaw, Jeremy [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Moher, David [4 ]
Lefebvre, Carol [6 ]
机构
[1] Childrens Hosp Eastern Ontario, Res Inst, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L1, Canada
[2] Univ Wales, Dept Informat Studies, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, Wales
[3] Univ Ottawa, Inst Populat Hlth, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Ottawa, Fac Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[5] Ottawa Hlth Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[6] Natl Inst Hlth Res, UK Cochrane Ctr, Oxford, England
关键词
Evidence-based practice; Information retrieval; Peer review; Practice guideline; Search strategies; Systematic reviews;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: Complex and highly sensitive electronic literature search strategies are required for systematic reviews; however, no guidelines exist for their peer review. Poor searches may fail to identify existing evidence because of inadequate recall (sensitivity) or increase the resource requirements of reviews as a result of inadequate precision. Our objective was to create an annotated checklist for electronic search strategy peer review. Study Design: A systematic review of the library and information retrieval literature for important elements in electronic search strategies was conducted, along with a survey of individuals experienced in systematic review searching. Results: Six elements with a strong consensus as to their importance in peer review were accurate translation of the research question into search concepts, correct choice of Boolean operators and of line numbers, adequate translation of the search strategy for each database, inclusion of relevant subject headings, and absence of spelling errors. Seven additional elements had partial support and are included in this guideline. Conclusion: This evidence-based guideline facilitates the improvement of search quality through peer review, and thus the improvement in quality of systematic reviews. It is relevant for librarians/information specialists, journal editors, developers of knowledge translation tools, research organizations, and funding bodies. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All fights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:944 / 952
页数:9
相关论文
共 10 条
[1]  
DEMICHELI V., 2007, COCHRANE DATABASE SY, V2
[2]  
Higgins JPT, 2008, COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA
[3]  
JEFFERSON T, 2007, COCHRANE DATABASE SY, V2
[4]  
MCGOWAN J, 2008, 5 ANN M HLTH TECHN A
[5]  
MCGOWAN J, 2005, CAN QUALITY LIT SEAR
[6]  
Richardson W S, 1995, ACP J Club, V123, pA12
[7]  
SAMPSON M, PRESS PEER REV ELECT
[8]  
SAMPSON M, 2005, 13 COCHR C MELB AUST
[9]   No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews [J].
Sampson, Margaret ;
McGowan, Jessie ;
Tetzlaff, Jennifer ;
Cogo, Elise ;
Moher, David .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 61 (08) :748-754
[10]   Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency [J].
Sampson, Margaret ;
McGowan, Jessie .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 59 (10) :1057-1063