Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies

被引:267
作者
Cooper, Chris [1 ]
Booth, Andrew [2 ]
Varley-Campbell, Jo [1 ]
Britten, Nicky [1 ]
Garside, Ruth [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Exeter, Med Sch, Inst Hlth Res, Exeter, Devon, England
[2] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res ScHARR, HEDS, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[3] Univ Exeter, Med Sch, European Ctr Environm & Human Hlth, Truro, England
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; ABBREVIATED LITERATURE SEARCHES; QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE; DATABASES; HEALTH; LIBRARIANS; MEDLINE; INTERVENTIONS; STRATEGIES; BIAS;
D O I
10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3
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
Background: Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies. Method: A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching. Results: Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process. Conclusions: Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 128 条
  • [91] Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study
    Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara
    Klerings, Irma
    Wagner, Gernot
    Heise, Thomas L.
    Dobrescu, Andreea I.
    Armijo-Olivo, Susan
    Stratil, Jan M.
    Persad, Emma
    Lhachimi, Stefan K.
    Van Noord, Megan G.
    Mitterrnayr, Tarquin
    Zeeb, Hajo
    Hemkens, Lars
    Gartlehner, Gerald
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 102 : 1 - 11
  • [92] Assessing the validity of abbreviated literature searches for rapid reviews: Protocol of a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic study
    Nussbaumer-Streit B.
    Klerings I.
    Wagner G.
    Titscher V.
    Gartlehner G.
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 5 (1)
  • [93] Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: how far should you go?
    Ogilvie, D
    Hamilton, V
    Egan, M
    Petticrew, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2005, 59 (09) : 804 - 808
  • [94] Papaioannou D, 2010, HEALTH INFO LIBR J, V27, P114, DOI [10.1111/J.1471-1842.2009.00863.x, 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863.x]
  • [95] Effectiveness of Search Strategies for Qualitative Research About Barriers and Facilitators of Program Delivery
    Pearson, Mark
    Moxham, Tiffany
    Ashton, Kate
    [J]. EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2011, 34 (03) : 297 - 308
  • [96] Search terms and a validated brief search filter to retrieve publications on health-related values in Medline: a word frequency analysis study
    Petrova, Mila
    Sutcliffe, Paul
    Fulford, K. W. M.
    Dale, Jeremy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2012, 19 (03) : 479 - 488
  • [97] Petticrew M, 2006, SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES: A PRACTICAL GUIDE, P1, DOI 10.1002/9780470754887
  • [98] Petticrew M, 2015, SYST REV-LONDON, V4, DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0027-1
  • [99] Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary
    Pham, B
    Klassen, TP
    Lawson, ML
    Moher, D
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2005, 58 (08) : 769 - 776
  • [100] Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of common issues
    Rader, Tamara
    Mann, Mala
    Stansfield, Claire
    Cooper, Chris
    Sampsone, Margaret
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2014, 5 (02) : 98 - 115