Erratum to: Web searching for systematic reviews: A case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme (BMC Research Notes (2015) 8 (153) DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1079-y);Web searching for systematic reviews: A case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme

BMC Research Notes

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Briscoe, Simon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Literature searching; Reporting standards; Systematic reviews; Web searching; World Wide Web

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DATA MINING; HUMAN; INTERNET; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEARCH ENGINE; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTILIZATION;

DATA MINING; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INTERNET; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEARCH ENGINE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84928470989     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17560500     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-016-1971-0     Document Type: Erratum

References (22)

1. Gehanno JF, Rollin L, Darmoni S. Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:7.
2. Boeker M, Vach W, Motschall E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:131.
3. Giustini D, Boulos MN. Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Online J Public Health Informat. 2013;5(2):214.
4. Systematic Reviews. CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2008.
5. Farace DJ, Frantzen J. Third International Conference on Grey Literature: perspectives on the design and transfer of scientific and technical information: 13-14 November 1997. TransAtlantic: Luxembourg; 1997.
6. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.
7. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
8. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
9. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
10. National Institute for Health Research [ http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta/policy-customers ] Accessed 3rd November 2014.
11. The CRD database [ http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ ] Accessed 3rd November 2014.
12. The NIHR journals library [ http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/ ] Accessed 3rd November 2014.
13. Chowdhury GG, Chowdhury S. Organizing Information from the Shelf to the Web. London: Facet Publishing; 2007.
14. Pandor A, Eggington S, Paisley S, Tappenden P, Sutcliffe P. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin and capecitabine for the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2006;10(41):iii-iv. xi-xiv, 1-185.
15. Rodgers M, Nixon J, Hempel S, Aho T, Kelly J, Neal D, et al. Diagnostic tests and algorithms used in the investigation of haematuria: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2006;10(18):iii-iv. xi-259.
16. Carr SM, Lhussier M, Forster N, Geddes L, Deane K, Pennington M, et al. An evidence synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research on component intervention techniques, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity and acceptability of different versions of health-related lifestyle advisor role in improving health. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2011;15(9):iii-iv. 1-284.
17. McKenna C, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Hawkins N, Claxton K, Light K, et al. Enhanced external counterpulsation for the treatment of stable angina and heart failure: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2009;13(24):iii-iv. ix-xi, 1-90.
18. Sullivan D. Google still world's most popular search engine by far, but share of unique searchers dips slightly [ http://searchengineland.com/google-worlds-most-popular-search-engine-148089 ] Accessed 3rd November 2014.
19. Blakeman K. Finding research information on the web: how to make the most of Google and other free search tools. Sci Prog. 2013;96(1):61-84.
20. Pariser E. The filter bubble: what the internet is hiding from you. London: Viking; 2011.
21. Relevo R. Searching the grey literature: where to look and what to expect. In: AHRQ Annual Conference. 18-21 September 2011. Bethesda, Maryland: AHRQ; 2011.
22. Briscoe S. Web searching for health technology assessment reports. In: InterTASC ISSG workshop: a discussion on the use of information in UK health technology assessments. 9 July 2014. University of Exeter, UK; 2014.