Methods for documenting systematic review searches: A discussion of common issues

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 98-115

  Rader, Tamara ^a   Mann, Mala ^b   Stansfield, Claire ^c   Cooper, Chris ^d   Sampson, Margaret ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^e CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Documenting searches; Information retrieval; PRISMA; Reporting standards; Search strategies; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; DOCUMENTATION; FACTUAL DATABASE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PROCEDURES; RESEARCH;

DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DOCUMENTATION; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH REPORT; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84925214218     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1097     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Brunton J, Thomas J. 2012. Information management in reviews. In An Introduction to Systematic Reviews, eds D Gough, S Oliver & J Thomas, Sage, London.
2. CADTH. 2011. Grey matters a practical search tool for evidence-based medicine, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH).
3. Churchill R, Higgins J, Chandler J, Tovey D, Lasserson T. 2011. Methodological standards for the conduct of Cochrane Intervention Reviews Version 1 Available from: .
4. Ciapponi A, Glujovsky D. 2011. EROS: is it the Web-based software developed to facilitate the initial phases of a Cochrane systematic review?. In 19th Cochrane Colloquium. The Cochrane Collaboration, Madrid.
5. Eden J, Berg LLA, Morton S, et al. 2011. Standards for reporting systematic reviews, in Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington DC.: Institute of Medicine (US). Available from: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx?page=4.
6. EPPI-Centre. 2013. EPPI-Reviewer 4, Social Science Research Unit at the Institute of Education. University of London, UK.; [updated Jun 12, 2013. (Version 4.3.4.1); cited 2013 July 3, 2013]; Available from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?alias=eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/er4.
7. Fehrmann P, Thomas J. 2011. Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods 2(1): 15-32.
8. Gough D. 2007. Weight of Evidence a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education 22(2): 213-228. [2011/10/11].
9. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. 2005. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 331(7524): 1064-1065.
10. Hopewell S, Clarke MJ, Lefebvre C, Scherer RW. 2007. Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: MR000001. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000001.pub2.
11. Horsley T, Dingwall O, Sampson M. 2011. Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. In Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 8. Art. No.: MR000026. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000026.pub2.
12. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. 2011. Chapter 6: searching for studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011], eds JPT Higgins, S Green. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK.
13. Mann M. 2010. Searching for success in a public health intervention review. In Joint Colloquium of the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. Keystone, Colorado, USA.
14. McGowan J, Sampson M, Lefebvre C. 2010. An Evidence Based Checklist for the Peer Review Of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS EBC).
15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339: b2535.
16. NICE, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Available from: .
17. Niederstadt C, Droste S. 2010. Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 26(04): 450-457.
18. Roundtree AK, Kallen MA, Lopez-Olivo MA, Kimmel B, Skidmore B, Ortiz Z, Cox V, Suarez-Almazor ME. 2009. Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62(2): 128-37.
19. Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, Cogo E, Moher D. 2008. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61(8): 748-754.
20. Sampson M, Tetzlaff J, Urquhart C. 2011. Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample. Research Synthesis Methods 2(2): 119-125.
21. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, et al. 2007. Updating systematic reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). (Technical Reviews, No. 16.) Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44099/.
22. Stansfield C. 2010. Search wide and dig deep: identifying 'views' research for systematic reviews. In Joint Colloquium of the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. Keystone, Colorado, U.S.A.
23. SurveyMonkey.com, L. 2011. Available from: .
24. Yoshii A, Plaut D, McGraw K, Anderson M, Wellik K. 2009. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane Systematic Reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association 97(1): 21-9.
25. Younger P, Boddy K. 2009. When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26(2): 126-135.