共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 109 毫秒
1.
Leah Boulos Rachel Ogilvie Jill A. Hayden 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(1):23
Objective:This study retroactively investigated the search used in a 2019 review by Hayden et al., one of the first systematic reviews of prognostic factors that was published in the Cochrane Library. The review was designed to address recognized weaknesses in reviews of prognosis by using multiple supplementary search methods in addition to traditional electronic database searching.Methods:The authors used four approaches to comprehensively assess aspects of systematic review literature searching for prognostic factor studies: (1) comparison of search recall of broad versus focused electronic search strategies, (2) linking of search methods of origin for eligible studies, (3) analysis of impact of supplementary search methods on meta-analysis conclusions, and (4) analysis of prognosis filter performance.Results:The review''s focused electronic search strategy resulted in a 91% reduction in recall, compared to a broader version. Had the team relied on the focused search strategy without using supplementary search methods, they would have missed 23 of 58 eligible studies that were indexed in MEDLINE; additionally, the number of included studies in 2 of the review''s primary outcome meta-analyses would have changed. Using a broader strategy without supplementary searches would still have missed 5 studies. The prognosis filter used in the review demonstrated the highest sensitivity of any of the filters tested.Conclusions:Our study results support recommendations for supplementary search methods made by prominent systematic review methodologists. Leaving out any supplemental search methods would have resulted in missed studies, and these omissions would not have been prevented by using a broader search strategy or any of the other prognosis filters tested.Open in a separate windowLeah Boulos 相似文献
2.
Helmer D Savoie I Green C Kazanjian A 《Bulletin of the Medical Library Association》2001,89(4):346-352
BACKGROUND: Cochrane-style systematic reviews increasingly require the participation of librarians. Guidelines on the appropriate search strategy to use for systematic reviews have been proposed. However, research evidence supporting these recommendations is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the effectiveness of various systematic search methods used to uncover randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. Effectiveness is defined as the proportion of relevant material uncovered for the systematic review using extended systematic review search methods. The following extended systematic search methods are evaluated: searching subject-specific or specialized databases (including trial registries), hand searching, scanning reference lists, and communicating personally. METHODS: Two systematic review projects were prospectively monitored regarding the method used to identify items as well as the type of items retrieved. The proportion of RCTs identified by each systematic search method was calculated. RESULTS: The extended systematic search methods uncovered 29.2% of all items retrieved for the systematic reviews. The search of specialized databases was the most effective method, followed by scanning of reference lists, communicating personally, and hand searching. Although the number of items identified through hand searching was small, these unique items would otherwise have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: Extended systematic search methods are effective tools for uncovering material for the systematic review. The quality of the items uncovered has yet to be assessed and will be key in evaluating the value of the systematic search methods. 相似文献
3.
Jos Antonio Salvador-Olivn Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca Rosario Arquero-Avils 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(4):561
Objective:Locating systematic reviews is essential for clinicians and researchers when creating or updating reviews and for decision-making in health care. This study aimed to develop a search filter for retrieving systematic reviews that improves upon the performance of the PubMed systematic review search filter.Methods:Search terms were identified from abstracts of reviews published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the titles of articles indexed as systematic reviews in PubMed. Both the precision of the candidate terms and the number of systematic reviews retrieved from PubMed were evaluated after excluding the subset of articles retrieved by the PubMed systematic review filter. Terms that achieved a precision greater than 70% and relevant publication types indexed with MeSH terms were included in the filter search strategy.Results:The search strategy used in our filter added specific terms not included in PubMed''s systematic review filter and achieved a 61.3% increase in the number of retrieved articles that are potential systematic reviews. Moreover, it achieved an average precision that is likely greater than 80%.Conclusions:The developed search filter will enable users to identify more systematic reviews from PubMed than the PubMed systematic review filter with high precision. 相似文献
4.
Justin Michael Clark Elaine Beller Paul Glasziou Sharon Sanders 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(2):201
Objective:The decisions and processes that may compose a systematic search strategy have not been formally identified and categorized. This study aimed to (1) identify all decisions that could be made and processes that could be used in a systematic search strategy and (2) create a hierarchical framework of those decisions and processes.Methods:The literature was searched for documents or guides on conducting a literature search for a systematic review or other evidence synthesis. The decisions or processes for locating studies were extracted from eligible documents and categorized into a structured hierarchical framework. Feedback from experts was sought to revise the framework. The framework was revised iteratively and tested using recently published literature on systematic searching.Results:Guidance documents were identified from expert organizations and a search of the literature and Internet. Data were extracted from 74 eligible documents to form the initial framework. The framework was revised based on feedback from 9 search experts and further review and testing by the authors. The hierarchical framework consists of 119 decisions or processes sorted into 17 categories and arranged under 5 topics. These topics are “Skill of the searcher,” “Selecting information to identify,” “Searching the literature electronically,” “Other ways to identify studies,” and “Updating the systematic review.”Conclusions:The work identifies and classifies the decisions and processes used in systematic searching. Future work can now focus on assessing and prioritizing research on the best methods for successfully identifying all eligible studies for a systematic review. 相似文献
5.
Bert Avau Hans Van Remoortel Emmy De Buck 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(4):599
Objective:The aim of this project was to validate search filters for systematic reviews, intervention studies, and observational studies translated from Ovid MEDLINE and Embase syntax and used for searches in PubMed and Embase.com during the development of evidence summaries supporting first aid guidelines. We aimed to achieve a balance among recall, specificity, precision, and number needed to read (NNR).Methods:Reference gold standards were constructed per study type derived from existing evidence summaries. Search filter performance was assessed through retrospective searches and measurement of relative recall, specificity, precision, and NNR when using the translated search filters. Where necessary, search filters were optimized. Adapted filters were validated in separate validation gold standards.Results:Search filters for systematic reviews and observational studies reached recall of ≥85% in both PubMed and Embase. Corresponding specificities for systematic review filters were ≥96% in both databases, with a precision of 9.7% (NNR 10) in PubMed and 5.4% (NNR 19) in Embase. For observational study filters, specificity, precision, and NNR were 68%, 2%, and 51 in PubMed and 47%, 0.8%, and 123 in Embase, respectively. These filters were considered sufficiently effective. Search filters for intervention studies reached a recall of 85% and 83% in PubMed and Embase, respectively. Optimization led to recall of ≥95% with specificity, precision, and NNR of 49%, 1.3%, and 79 in PubMed and 56%, 0.74%, and 136 in Embase, respectively.Conclusions:We report validated filters to search for systematic reviews, observational studies, and intervention studies in guideline projects in PubMed and Embase.com. 相似文献
6.
Diana Papaioannou Anthea Sutton Christopher Carroll Andrew Booth Ruth Wong 《Health information and libraries journal》2010,27(2):114-122
Background: Literature for a systematic review on the student experience of e‐learning is located across a range of subject areas including health, education, social science, library and information science. Objectives: To assess the merits and shortcomings of using different search techniques in retrieval of evidence in the social science literature. Methods: A conventional subject search was undertaken as the principal method of identifying the literature for the review. Four supplementary search methods were used including citation searching, reference list checking, contact with experts and pearl growing. Results: The conventional subject search identified 30 of 41 included references; retrieved from 10 different databases. References were missed by this method and a further 11 references were identified via citation searching, reference list checking and contact with experts. Pearl growing was suspended as the nominated pearls were dispersed across numerous databases, with no single database indexing more than four pearls. Conclusions: Searching within the social sciences literature requires careful consideration. Conventional subject searching identified the majority of references, but additional search techniques were essential and located further high quality references. 相似文献
7.
Matt Vassar Austin L. Johnson Adriana Sharp Cole Wayant 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(1):62
Objective:Reproducibility of systemic reviews (SRs) can be hindered by the presence of citation bias. Citation bias may occur when authors of SRs conduct hand-searches of included study reference lists to identify additional studies. Such a practice may lead to exaggerated SR summary effects. The purpose of this paper is to examine the prevalence of hand-searching reference lists in otolaryngology SRs.Methods:The authors searched for systematic reviews published in eight clinical otolaryngology journals using the Cochrane Library and PubMed, with the date parameter of January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017. Two independent authors worked separately to extract data from each SR for the following elements: whether reference lists were hand-searched, other kinds of supplemental searching, PRISMA adherence, and funding source. Following extraction, the investigators met to review discrepancies and achieve consensus.Results:A total of 539 systemic reviews, 502 from clinical journals and 37 from the Cochrane library, were identified. Of those SRs, 72.4% (390/539) hand-searched reference lists, including 97.3% (36/37) of Cochrane reviews. For 228 (58.5%) of the SRs that hand-searched reference lists, no other supplemental search (e.g., search of trial registries) was conducted.Conclusions:These findings indicate that hand-searching reference lists is a common practice in otolaryngology SRs. Moreover, a majority of studies at risk of citation bias did not attempt to mitigate the bias by conducting additional supplemental searches. The implication is that summary effects in otolaryngology systematic reviews may be biased toward statistically significant findings. 相似文献
8.
Background: The Australian National Stroke Foundation appointed a search specialist to find the best available evidence for the second edition of its Clinical Guidelines for Acute Stroke Management. Objective: To identify the relative effectiveness of differing evidence sources for the guideline update. Methods: We searched and reviewed references from five valid evidence sources for clinical and economic questions: (i) electronic databases; (ii) reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, guidelines, and/or primary studies; (iii) table of contents of a number of key journals for the last 6 months; (iv) internet/grey literature; and (v) experts. Reference sources were recorded, quantified, and analysed. Results: In the clinical portion of the guidelines document, there was a greater use of previous knowledge and sources other than electronic databases for evidence, while there was a greater use of electronic databases for the economic section. Conclusions: The results confirmed that searchers need to be aware of the context and range of sources for evidence searches. For best available evidence, searchers cannot rely solely on electronic databases and need to encompass many different media and sources. 相似文献
9.
10.
Melissa L. Rethlefsen Shona Kirtley Siw Waffenschmidt Ana Patricia Ayala David Moher Matthew J. Page Jonathan B. Koffel PRISMA-S Group 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(2):174
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 three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.Results:The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.Conclusions:The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible. 相似文献
11.
Objective:In regard to locating clinical trials for a systematic review, limited information is available about how librarians locate clinical trials in biomedical databases, including (1) how much information researchers provide librarians to assist with the development of a comprehensive search strategy, (2) which tools librarians turn to for information about study design methodology, and (3) librarians'' confidence levels in their knowledge of study design methodology. A survey was developed to explore these aspects of how a medical librarian locates clinical trials when facilitating systematic reviews for researchers.Methods:In this cross-sectional study, a 21-question survey was sent to medical librarians via several email listservs during April 2020. Respondents were limited to librarians who make the decisions on search terms for systematic reviews.Results:Responses (n=120) indicated that librarians were often asked to search for various types of clinical trials. However, there was not a consistent method for creating search strategies that locate diverse types of clinical trials. Multiple methods were used for search strategy development, with hedges being the most popular method. In general, these librarians considered themselves to be confident in locating trials. Different resources were used to inform study types, including textbooks, articles, library guides and websites.Discussion:Medical librarians indicated that while they felt confident in their searching skills, they did not have a definitive source of information about the various types of clinical trials, and their responses demonstrated a clear need and desire for more information on study design methodology. 相似文献
12.
Background
Systematic reviews risk producing biased conclusions if a comprehensive search to identify eligible studies is not undertaken, but little evidence exists to guide prioritisation of databases to search when resources are limited.Objectives
A systematic review examining interventions for managing frozen shoulder (adhesive capsulitis) was used to investigate the performance of bibliographic databases in identifying the included studies, the smallest combination of databases required to retrieve all included studies, and the performance of the searches themselves.Methods
We calculated the yield of included studies from each of 15 databases, and the recall and precision of each search strategy. We investigated differences between the presence of a record in a database and its retrieval.Results
Thirty of 31 studies were present in at least one database. Yields of individual databases ranged from 0% to 90% (median 23%). Two combinations of databases identified all 30 studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Science Citation Index (SCI); or CENTRAL, MEDLINE and PreMEDLINE.Conclusions
In a systematic review of a range of interventions used to manage frozen shoulder, at least two databases and reference checking were required to retrieve all included studies, but searching for future reviews should not be restricted. 相似文献13.
Lynda Ayiku Thomas Hudson Ceri Williams Paul Levay Catherine Jacob 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(4):583
Objective:We previously developed draft MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) geographic search filters for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries to assess their feasibility for finding evidence about the countries. Here, we describe the validation of these search filters.Methods:We identified OECD country references from thirty National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines to generate gold standard sets for MEDLINE (n=2,065) and Embase (n=2,023). We validated the filters by calculating their recall against these sets. We then applied the filters to existing search strategies for three OECD-focused NICE guideline reviews (NG103 on flu vaccination, NG140 on abortion care, and NG146 on workplace health) to calculate the filters'' impact on the number needed to read (NNR) of the searches.Results:The filters both achieved 99.95% recall against the gold standard sets. Both filters achieved 100% recall for the three NICE guideline reviews. The MEDLINE filter reduced NNR from 256 to 232 for the NG103 review, from 38 to 27 for the NG140 review, and from 631 to 591 for the NG146 review. The Embase filter reduced NNR from 373 to 341 for the NG103 review, from 101 to 76 for the NG140 review, and from 989 to 925 for the NG146 review.Conclusion:The NICE OECD countries'' search filters are the first validated filters for the countries. They can save time for research topics about OECD countries by finding the majority of evidence about OECD countries while reducing search result volumes in comparison to no filter use. 相似文献
14.
Matt Vassar Branden Carr Melissa Kash-Holley Elizabeth DeWitt Chelsea Koller Joshua Day Kimberly Day David Herrmann Matt Holzmann 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2015,103(4):189-192
Objective
The choice of bibliographic database during the systematic review search process has been an ongoing conversation among information specialists. With newer information sources, such as Google Scholar and clinical trials registries, we were interested in which databases were utilized by information specialists and systematic review researchers.Method
We retrieved 144 systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 4 clinical endocrinology journals and extracted all information sources used during the search processes.Results
Findings indicate that traditional bibliographic databases are most often used, followed by regional databases, clinical trials registries, and gray literature databases.Conclusions
This study informs information specialists about additional resources that may be considered during the search process. 相似文献15.
16.
Jenkins M 《Health information and libraries journal》2004,21(3):148-163
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were: to provide an overview of approaches to methodological search filter development; to identify and critically review the stages of methodological search filter development; to devise a search filter appraisal checklist based on the review. METHODS: An iterative approach to searching was employed utilizing health and library databases, the world wide web and citation searching. Further systematic methods included hand searching of key journals in the field of search filter development, contacting known experts in the field and scanning reference lists of relevant papers to identify additional studies. Altogether, 51 potentially relevant papers were found, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Four stages of search filter development were identified from the literature (search term selection, identification of a gold standard, evaluation and validation). Variations in the methods used to approach these four stages were identified, most importantly in the extent to which search filters are tested and validated. CONCLUSION: Awareness of the process and limitations involved in search filter development is essential to make an informed decision on the applicability and validity of search filters. The findings of this review indicate a considerable agenda for future research, in particular, to improve the quality of reporting of search filters and to inform users on their use and application. Based on the review, guidance in the appraisal process of search filters is given in the form of a checklist. 相似文献
17.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2020,46(5):102190
Comprehensive yet efficient search methods are essential for any systematic or scoping review. This article outlines the stages of development of a systematic search methodology for a scoping review within the library and information science (LIS) literature. The effectiveness of the database search strategies (LISTA, LISA, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science) and supplemental search techniques are measured through a retrospective analysis of performance metrics. Findings show that for research topics limited to the library setting, it may be more effective to search fewer databases (LISTA and Scopus only) for peer reviewed journal articles and allot more time to alternate search techniques such as web searching to identify non-journal literature. The article provides an evidence-based, methodological approach to developing a systematic search plan, unique to LIS researchers, that accounts for time and resource needs. 相似文献
18.
While the role of the librarian as an expert searcher in the systematic review process is widely recognized, librarians also can be enlisted to help systematic review teams with other challenges. This article reviews the contributions of librarians to systematic reviews, including communicating methods of the review process, collaboratively formulating the research question and exclusion criteria, formulating the search strategy on a variety of databases, documenting the searches, record keeping, and writing the search methodology. It also discusses challenges encountered such as irregular timelines, providing education, communication, and learning new technologies for record keeping. Rewards include building relationships with researchers, expanding professional expertise, and receiving recognition for contributions to health care outcomes. 相似文献
19.
While the role of the librarian as an expert searcher in the systematic review process is widely recognized, librarians also can be enlisted to help systematic review teams with other challenges. This article reviews the contributions of librarians to systematic reviews, including communicating methods of the review process, collaboratively formulating the research question and exclusion criteria, formulating the search strategy on a variety of databases, documenting the searches, record keeping, and writing the search methodology. It also discusses challenges encountered such as irregular timelines, providing education, communication, and learning new technologies for record keeping. Rewards include building relationships with researchers, expanding professional expertise, and receiving recognition for contributions to health care outcomes. 相似文献
20.
Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1