Use of a search summary table to improve systematic review search methods, results, and efficiency

被引:27
作者
Bethel, Alison C. [1 ]
Rogers, Morwenna [2 ]
Abbott, Rebecca [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Exeter, Med Sch, Evidence Synth Team, Exeter, Devon, England
[2] Univ Exeter, Natl Inst Hlth Res Appl Res Collaborat South West, Med Sch, Evidence Synth Team, Exeter, Devon, England
关键词
GREY LITERATURE; STRATEGIES; INFORMATION; DATABASES;
D O I
10.5195/jmla.2021.809
中图分类号
G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];
学科分类号
1205 ; 120501 ;
摘要
Background: Systematic reviews are comprehensive, robust, inclusive, transparent, and reproducible when bringing together the evidence to answer a research question. Various guidelines provide recommendations on the expertise required to conduct a systematic review, where and how to search for literature, and what should be reported in the published review. However, the finer details of the search results are not typically reported to allow the search methods or search efficiency to be evaluated. Case Presentation: This case study presents a search summary table, containing the details of which databases were searched, which supplementary search methods were used, and where the included articles were found. It was developed and published alongside a recent systematic review. This simple format can be used in future systematic reviews to improve search results reporting. Conclusions: Publishing a search summary table in all systematic reviews would add to the growing evidence base about information retrieval, which would help in determining which databases to search for which type of review (in terms of either topic or scope), what supplementary search methods are most effective, what type of literature is being included, and where it is found. It would also provide evidence for future searching and search methods research.
引用
收藏
页码:97 / 106
页数:10
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews - are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? [J].
Aagaard, Thomas ;
Lund, Hans ;
Juhl, Carsten .
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2016, 16 :1-11
[2]  
[Anonymous], **DATA OBJECT**, DOI DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/YGN9W
[3]   Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate [J].
Atkinson, Kayla M. ;
Koenka, Alison C. ;
Sanchez, Carmen E. ;
Moshontz, Hannah ;
Cooper, Harris .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2015, 6 (01) :87-95
[4]   Can we prioritise which databases to search? A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management [J].
Beyer, Fiona R. ;
Wright, Kath .
HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL, 2013, 30 (01) :49-58
[5]   Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry [J].
Borah, Rohit ;
Brown, Andrew W. ;
Capers, Patrice L. ;
Kaiser, Kathryn A. .
BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (02)
[6]   Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study [J].
Bramer, Wichor M. ;
Rethlefsen, Melissa L. ;
Kleijnen, Jos ;
Franco, Oscar H. .
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, 6
[7]  
Brettle AJ, 2001, B MED LIBR ASSOC, V89, P353
[8]  
Campbell Collaboration, 2019, 1 CAMPB COLL
[9]  
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2009, Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
[10]   Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting [J].
Colquhoun, Heather L. ;
Levac, Danielle ;
O'Brien, Kelly K. ;
Straus, Sharon ;
Tricco, Andrea C. ;
Perrier, Laure ;
Kastner, Monika ;
Moher, David .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (12) :1291-1294