No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 61, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 748-754

  Sampson, Margaret ^a,b   McGowan, Jessie ^a,c   Tetzlaff, Jennifer ^b   Cogo, Elise ^b,c   Moher, David ^b,c  

^a ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Epidemiologic methods; Information storage and retrieval; Publishing standards; Reproducibility of results; Search strategies; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CINAHL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONSENSUS; DATA BASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE ABSTRACTS DATABASE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCINFO; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

COHORT STUDIES; CONSENSUS; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 45849092608     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.009     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Brazier H. Poorly executed and inadequately documented? An analysis of the literature searches on which systematic reviews are based. 2nd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basic, 1999.
2. Golder S., Loke Y., and McIntosh H.M. Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects. BMC Med Res Methodol 6 (2006) 3
3. Sampson M., and McGowan J. Reporting of the role of the expert searcher in Cochrane reviews (2005), XIII Cochrane Colloquium, Melbourne, Australia
4. Moher D., Cook D.J., Eastwood S., Olkin I., Rennie D., Stroup D.F., et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 354 (1999) 1896-1900
5. Moher D., Tetzlaff J., Tricco A.C., Sampson M., and Altman D.G. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4 3 (2007) e78
6. Sampson M, McGowan J, Lefebvre C, Grimshaw JM, Moher D. PRESS: (Peer Review Electronic Search Strategy). CADTH Technical Report 2007. Available at www.cadth.ca.
7. Ruddy R., and House A. Meta-review of high-quality systematic reviews of interventions in key areas of liaison psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry 187 (2005) 109-120
8. Montori V.M., Wilczynski N.L., Morgan D., and Haynes R.B. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 330 7482 (2005) 68
9. Stroup D.F., Berlin J.A., Morton S.C., Olkin I., Williamson G.D., Rennie D., et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283 15 (2000) 2008-2012
10. Shea B., Dube C., and Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic review: the QUOROM statement compared to other tools. In: Egger M., Smith G.D., and Altman D.G. (Eds). Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context (2001), BMJ Publishing Group, London 122-139
11. Jensen MF, Ket H. Check it out! A checklist for evaluating the reporting of literature search methodology in HTAs and CPGs [Poster presentation]. Second Annual Meeting of the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Rome, Italy, 2005.
12. Patrick T.B., Demiris G., Folk L.C., Moxley D.E., Mitchell J.A., and Tao D. Evidence-based retrieval in evidence-based medicine. J Med Libr Assoc 92 2 (2004) 196-199
13. The AGREE Collaboration. Appraisal of guidelines for research & evaluation (AGREE) instrument (2001), St. George's Hospital Medical School, London
14. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. INAHTA HTA Checklist, 2001.
15. Higgins J.P.T., and Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. Updated 2005. Available at. http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook.htm Accessed July 8, 2008
16. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Liberati A, Altman DG, for the PRISMA group. Recommendations for reporting systematic reviews of randomized trials: the PRISMA Statement. In preparation, 2008.
17. Booth A. "Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc 94 (2006) 421
18. Shea B.J., Grimshaw J.M., Wells G.A., Boers M., Andersson N., Hamel C., et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7 (2007) 10
19. Shea B., Grimshaw J.M., Wells G., Boers M., Hamel C., Porter A., et al. Advancement of the methodological quality through a measurement tool to assess reviews (2006), AMSTAR. XIV Cochane Colloquium, Dublin, Ireland
20. Sampson M., and McGowan J. Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 1057-1063
21. Phillips B., Ball C., Sackett D., Badenoch D., Straus S., Haynes R.B., et al. Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence. Updated 2001. Available at. http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp Accessed November 5, 2007
22. Zhang L., Sampson M., and McGowan J. Reporting of the role of the expert searcher in Cochrane reviews. Evid Based Libr Info Pract 1 4 (2006) 3-16