Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: A cross-sectional survey of recent authors

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 2015, Pages

  Koffel, Jonathan B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE ASSESSMENT; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; HUMAN; LIBRARIAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; SEARCH STRATEGY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); FACTUAL DATABASE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; QUESTIONNAIRE;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; LIBRARIANS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84929104321     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125931     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2 website. Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Available: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed 1 April 2015.
2. Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
3. 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 health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 PMID: 19621070
4. Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.
5. Relevo R, Balshern H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions. In: Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews, AHRQ publication no. 10(14)-EHC063-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; January 2014. Available: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction = displayproduct&productid=605. Accessed 1 April 2015.
6. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, 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. 2000; 283(15):2008-12. PMID: 10789670
7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10):1006-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 PMID: 19631508
8. Sampson M, McGowan J. Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59(10):1057-63. PMID: 16980145
9. Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh HM. Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(5):440-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005 PMID: 18394536
10. Li L, Tian J, Tian H, Moher D, Liang F, Jiang T, et al. Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(9):1001-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.003 PMID: 24841794
11. Maggio LA, Tannery NH, Kanter SL. Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews. Acad Med. 2011; 86(8):1049-54. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822221e7 PMID: 21694568
12. Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, Cogo E, Moher D. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(8):748-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.009 PMID: 18586178
13. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007; 4(3):e78. PMID: 17388659
14. Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, Anderson MJ, Wellik KE. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009; 97(1):21-9. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004 PMID: 19158999
15. Golder S, Loke YK, Zorzela L. Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews. Health Info Libr J. 2014; 31(2):92-105. doi: 10.1111/hir.12041 PMID: 24754741
16. Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA. 2014; 312(10):999-1000. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.9263 PMID: 25203078
17. Weller AC. Mounting evidence that librarians are essential for comprehensive literature searches for meta-analyses and Cochrane reports. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004; 92(2):163-4. PMID: 15088073
18. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005; 93 (1):74-80. PMID: 15685278
19. McKibbon A. Systematic reviews and librarians. Libr Trends. 2006; 55(1):202-15.
20. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiology. 2015;In press.
21. Zhang L, Sampson M, McGowan J. Reporting of the role of the expert searcher in Cochrane reviews. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2006; 1(4):3-16.
22. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects [website]. York, UK: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2014 [cited October 6, 2014]. Available: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/. Accessed 1 April 2015.
23. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Sherrington C. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10):1021-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.018 PMID: 19282144
24. Lee E, Dobbins M, Decorby K, McRae L, Tirilis D, Husson H. An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12:51. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-51 PMID: 22512835
25. Scopus [website]. Elsevier. 2014. Available: http://www.scopus.com/. Accessed 1 April 2015.
26. Web of Science [website]. Thomson Reuters. 2014. Available: http://wokinfo.com/. Accessed 1 April 2015.
27. Journal Citation Reports [website]. Thomson Reuters. 2014. Available: http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-reports/. Accessed 1 April 2015.
28. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997; 314(7079):498-502. PMID: 9056804
29. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(9):944-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012 PMID: 19230612
30. Major MP, Warren S, Flores-Mir C. Survey of systematic review authors in dentistry: challenges in methodology and reporting. J Dent Educ. 2009; 73(4):471-82. PMID: 19339434
31. Klimo P Jr, Thompson CJ, Ragel BT, Boop FA. Methodology and reporting of meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature. J Neurosurg. 2014; 120(4):796-810. doi: 10.3171/2013.11.JNS13195 PMID: 24460488
32. Fleming PS, Koletsi D, Seehra J, Pandis N. Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(7):754-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.002 PMID: 24709031
33. Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Reporting characteristics of meta-analyses in orthodontics: methodological assessment and statistical recommendations. Eur J Orthod. 2014; 36 (1):74-85. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt008 PMID: 23493385
34. Aziz T, Compton S, Nassar U, Matthews D, Ansari K, Flores-Mir C. Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic-related systematic reviews. J Oral Rehabil. 2013; 40(4):263-78. doi: 10.1111/joor.12028 PMID: 23330989
35. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12):e83138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 PMID: 24386151
36. Tao KM, Li XQ, Zhou QH, Moher D, Ling CQ, Yu WF. From QUOROM to PRISMA: a survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature. PLoS One. 2011; 6(11):e27611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027611 PMID: 22110690
37. Beller EM, Chen JK-H, Wang UL-H, Glasziou PP. Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?Syst Rev. 2013; 2:36. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-36 PMID: 23714302
38. Cornelius VR, Perrio MJ, Shakir SA, Smith LA. Systematic reviews of adverse effects of drug interventions: a survey of their conduct and reporting quality. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009; 18 (12):1223-31. doi: 10.1002/pds.1844 PMID: 19757414
39. Faggion CM Jr, Atieh MA, Park S. Search strategies in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry. J Clin Periodontol. 2013; 40(9):883-8. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12132 PMID: 23834263
40. Fehrmann P, Thomas J. Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2011; 2(1):15-32.
41. Flores-Mir C, Major MP, Major PW. Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000-2004). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(2):214-7. PMID: 16905066
42. Ge L, Wang JC, Li JL, Liang L, An N, Shi XT, et al. The assessment of the quality of reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in diagnostic tests published by authors in China. PLoS One. 2014; 9(1): e85908. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085908 PMID: 24465781
43. Gianola S, Gasparini M, Agostini M, Castellini G, Corbetta D, Gozzer P, et al. Survey of the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2013; 93(11):1456-66. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120382 PMID: 23744458
44. Golder S, Loke YK, Zorzela L. Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(3):253-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.013 PMID: 23347849
45. Lawson ML, Pham B, Klassen TP, Moher D. Systematic reviews involving complementary and alternative medicine interventions had higher quality of reporting than conventional medicine reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(8):777-84. PMID: 16018912
46. Lundh A, Knijnenburg SL, Jorgensen AW, van Dalen EC, Kremer LC. Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology-a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009; 35(8):645-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010 PMID: 19836897
47. Major MP, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. An evaluation of search and selection methods used in dental systematic reviews published in English. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137(9):1252-7. PMID: 16946429
48. Major MP, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality. Evid Based Dent. 2007; 8(3):66-70. PMID: 17891119
49. Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Halligan S, Hopewell S, Cornelius V, Altman DG. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting. BMJ. 2006; 333(7565):413. PMID: 16849365
50. Turner L, Galipeau J, Garritty C, Manheimer E, Wieland LS, Yazdi F, et al. An evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs). PLoS One. 2013; 8(1):e53536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053536 PMID: 23341949
51. Tannery NH, Maggio LA. The role of medical librarians in medical education review articles. J Med Libr Assoc. 2012; 100(2):142-4. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.100.2.015 PMID: 22514513
52. About Cochrane Reviews [website]. London, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2015. Available: http://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-systematic-reviews.html. Accessed 1 April 2015.