Systematic Literature Search Strategies for the Health Sciences (original) (raw)
Related papers
Comprehensive Systematic Search Process of Health Literature: Hunting Pearls out of the Sea
Background: Clinical information is expanding at an accelerated rate all over the world, encompassing scholarly articles, books, practice guidelines and grey literature. In knowledge synthesis practices systematic reviews are seen as the gold standard and in the heart of this methodology is a “systematic search”. Methods: This paper focuses on describing the “systematic search” process, which is different than a general-purpose search in conventional search engines. Our previously published paper was used as the example while describing the search process health care researchers might follow. Results: Almost every systematic search and screening reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals involves the following major steps: Generate appropriate and comprehensive sets of search words, find appropriate databases for the search, search in databases with a combination of search words, export search results into reference management software, and screening of literature. Conclusion: In this paper, we tried to focus on the systematic searching and literature screening for knowledge synthesis focusing on medical or health research. All of the methodological steps described here are part of standard practice for synthesis among scientific communities, while also based on the experiences of the authors in conducting review studies.
Systematic Reviews, 2013
The Cochrane Collaboration was established in 1993, following the opening of the UK Cochrane Centre in 1992, at a time when searching for studies for inclusion in systematic reviews was not well-developed. Review authors largely conducted their own searches or depended on medical librarians, who often possessed limited awareness and experience of systematic reviews. Guidance on the conduct and reporting of searches was limited. When work began to identify reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for inclusion in Cochrane Reviews in 1992, there were only approximately 20,000 reports indexed as RCTs in MEDLINE and none indexed as RCTs in Embase. No search filters had been developed with the aim of identifying all RCTs in MEDLINE or other major databases. This presented The Cochrane Collaboration with a considerable challenge in identifying relevant studies. Over time, the number of studies indexed as RCTs in the major databases has grown considerably and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) has become the best single source of published controlled trials, with approximately 700,000 records, including records identified by the Collaboration from Embase and MEDLINE. Search filters for various study types, including systematic reviews and the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategies for RCTs, have been developed. There have been considerable advances in the evidence base for methodological aspects of information retrieval. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions now provides detailed guidance on the conduct and reporting of searches. Initiatives across The Cochrane Collaboration to improve the quality inter alia of information retrieval include: the recently introduced Methodological Expectations for Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) programme, which stipulates 'mandatory' and 'highly desirable' standards for various aspects of review conduct and reporting including searching, the development of Standard Training Materials for Cochrane Reviews and work on peer review of electronic search strategies. Almost all Cochrane Review Groups and some Cochrane Centres and Fields now have a Trials Search Coordinator responsible for study identification and medical librarians and other information specialists are increasingly experienced in searching for studies for systematic reviews. Prospective registration of clinical trials is increasing and searching trials registers is now mandatory for Cochrane Reviews, where relevant. Portals such as the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) are likely to become increasingly attractive, given concerns about the number of trials which may not be registered and/or published. The importance of access to information from regulatory and reimbursement agencies is likely to increase. Cross-database searching, gateways or portals and improved access to full-text databases will impact on how searches are conducted and reported, as will services such as Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Technologies such as textual analysis, semantic analysis, text mining and data linkage will have a major impact on the search process but efficient and effective updating of reviews may remain a challenge.
BMC medical research methodology, 2018
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. A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbo...
Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2009
Background: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions provides instructions for documenting a systematic review's electronic database search strategy, listing elements that should be in the description. Complete documentation of the search strategy allows readers to evaluate the search when critically appraising a review's quality. Objective: The research analyzed recently published Cochrane reviews to determine whether instructions for describing electronic database search strategies were being followed. Methods: Eighty-three new reviews added to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the first quarter of 2006 were selected for analysis. Eighteen were subsequently excluded because their searches were conducted only in the specialized registers of Cochrane review groups. The remaining sixty-five reviews were analyzed for the seven elements of an electronic database search strategy description listed in the Cochrane Handbook, using dual review with consensus. Results: Of the 65 reviews analyzed, none included all 7 recommended elements. Four reviews (6%) included 6 elements. Thirty-two percent (21/65) included 5 or more elements, with 68% (44/65) including 4 or fewer. Three included only 2 elements. The 65 reviews represented 41 different Cochrane review groups. Conclusion: The instructions from the Cochrane Handbook for reporting search strategies are not being consistently employed by groups producing Cochrane reviews.
Search Strategy Formulation for Systematic Reviews: issues, challenges and opportunities
ArXiv, 2021
Systematic literature reviews play a vital role in identifying the best available evidence for health and social care policy. The resources required to produce systematic reviews can be significant, and a key to the success of any review is the search strategy used to identify relevant literature. However, the methods used to construct search strategies can be complex, time consuming, resource intensive and error prone. In this review, we examine the state of the art in resolving complex structured information needs, focusing primarily on the healthcare context. We analyse the literature to identify key challenges and issues and explore appropriate solutions and workarounds. From this analysis we propose a way forward to facilitate trust and transparency and to aid explainability, reproducibility and replicability through a set of key design principles for tools to support the development of search strategies in systematic literature reviews.
Background: Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration. Methods: The checklist was developed using a 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process. Results: The final checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.
British Medical Journal, 2005
audit of primary sources in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7524/1064 Updated information and services can be found at: These include: Rapid responses http://bmj.com/cgi/eletter-submit/331/7524/1064 You can respond to this article at: service Email alerting box at the top right corner of the article Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article -sign up in the Topic collections (279 articles) Systematic reviews (incl meta-analyses): examples (120 articles) Systematic reviews (incl meta-analyses): descriptions Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections Notes http://www.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprintform To order reprints of this article go to: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/subscriptions/subscribe.shtml go to: BMJ To subscribe to on 3 November 2005 bmj.com Downloaded from
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2014
Background: Since 2005, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) member journals have required that clinical trials be registered in publicly available trials registers before they are considered for publication. Objectives: The research explores whether it is adequate, when searching to inform systematic reviews, to search for relevant clinical trials using only public trials registers and to identify the optimal search approaches in trials registers. Methods: A search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for research studies that had been included in eight systematic reviews. Four search approaches (highly sensitive, sensitive, precise, and highly precise) were performed using the basic and advanced interfaces in both resources.