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

作者: Chris Cooper , Andrew Booth , Jo Varley-Campbell , Nicky Britten , Ruth Garside

DOI: 10.1186/S12874-018-0545-3

关键词:

摘要: Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves search for studies and aims transparent report study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, how findings are situated in relevant evidence. Information specialists teams appear work from shared tacit model How this has developed evolved unclear, it not been explicitly examined before. The purpose determine if process can be detected across guidance documents and, so, reported supported by published studies. A review. Two types were reviewed: Nine identified, including: Cochrane Campbell Handbooks. Published identified through ‘pearl growing’, citation chasing, PubMed using methods filter, authors’ topic knowledge. sections within each document then read re-read, with aim determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages defined. This data reviewed agreements areas unique between documents. Consensus multiple used inform selection ‘key stages’ searching. Eight determined relating specifically reviews. They were: who should search, searching, preparation, strategy, databases, supplementary managing references reporting reviews identified. These consistently nine documents, suggesting consensus on therefore whole, Further research suitability same all indicated.

参考文章(117)
Maria E Suarez-Almazor, Elaine Belseck, Joanne Homik, Marlene Dorgan, Cesar Ramos-Remus, Identifying Clinical Trials in the Medical Literature with Electronic Databases: MEDLINE Alone Is Not Enough Controlled Clinical Trials. ,vol. 21, pp. 476- 487 ,(2000) , 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00067-2
Shannon Kugley, Anne Wade, James Thomas, Quenby Mahood, Anne‐Marie Klint Jørgensen, Karianne Hammerstrøm, Nila Sathe, Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews Campbell Systematic Reviews. ,vol. 13, pp. 1- 73 ,(2017) , 10.4073/CMG.2016.1
M Egger, P Jüni, C Bartlett, F Holenstein, J Sterne, How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technology Assessment. ,vol. 7, pp. 1- 76 ,(2003) , 10.3310/HTA7010
Martha R Harris, The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study. Journal of The Medical Library Association. ,vol. 93, pp. 81- 87 ,(2005)
Penny Whiting, Jelena Savović, Julian PT Higgins, Deborah M Caldwell, Barnaby C Reeves, Beverley Shea, Philippa Davies, Jos Kleijnen, Rachel Churchill, None, ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ,vol. 69, pp. 225- 234 ,(2016) , 10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2015.06.005
Paul Levay, Nicola Ainsworth, Rachel Kettle, Antony Morgan, Identifying evidence for public health guidance: a comparison of citation searching with Web of Science and Google Scholar Research Synthesis Methods. ,vol. 7, pp. 34- 45 ,(2016) , 10.1002/JRSM.1158
Ana P Betrán, Lale Say, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Tomas Allen, Lynn Hampson, Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality BMC Medical Research Methodology. ,vol. 5, pp. 6- 6 ,(2005) , 10.1186/1471-2288-5-6
Claire Stansfield, James Thomas, Josephine Kavanagh, ‘Clustering’ documents automatically to support scoping reviews of research: a case study Research Synthesis Methods. ,vol. 4, pp. 230- 241 ,(2013) , 10.1002/JRSM.1082
Paul Levay, Michael Raynor, Daniel Tuvey, The Contributions of MEDLINE, Other Bibliographic Databases and Various Search Techniques to NICE Public Health Guidance Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. ,vol. 10, pp. 50- 68 ,(2015) , 10.18438/B82P55