Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources

Environmental Evidence

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Livoreil, Barbara ^a   Glanville, Julie ^b   Haddaway, Neal R ^c   Bayliss, Helen ^d   Bethel, Alison ^e   De Lachapelle, Frédérique Flamerie ^f   Robalino, Shannon ^g   Savilaakso, Sini ^h   Zhou, Wen ^h   Petrokofsky, Gill ⁱ   Frampton, Geoff ^j  

^a Domain du Petit Arbois   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^c STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^d BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF EXETER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^f SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^g NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^h Center for International Forestry and Agricultural Research   (Indonesia)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Bibliographic sources; Boolean operators; Evidence synthesis; Grey literature; Literature review; Search strategy; Search string; Systematic map; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

EID: 85027681372     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20472382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13750-017-0099-6     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Avenell A, Handoll H, Grant A. Lessons for search strategies from a systematic review, in The Cochrane Library, of nutritional supplementation trials in patients after hip fracture. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73(3):505-10.
2. Bayliss HR, Beyer FR. Information retrieval for ecological syntheses. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(2):136-48.
3. Bayliss HR, Haddaway NR, Eales J, Frampton GK, James KL. Updating and amending systematic reviews and systematic maps in environmental management. Environ Evid. 2016;5(1):20.
4. Booth A. How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010. doi: 10.1017/s0266462310000966.
5. Bottrill M, Cheng S, Garside R, Wongbusarakum S, Roe D, Holland MB, Edmond J, Turner WR. What are the impacts of nature conservation interventions on human well-being: a systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2014;3:16.
6. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BMR, Anderson PF. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic review: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:115.
7. CEE (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence). Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 4.2. CEE; 2013.
8. Corlett RT. Trouble with the gray literature. Biotropica. 2011;43(1):3-5.
9. Dickersin K. Publication bias: recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, editors. Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment, and adjustments. London: Wiley; 2005. p. 11-3.
10. Doerr ED, Dorrough J, Davies MJ, Doerr VAJ, McIntyre S. Maximising the value of systematic reviews in ecology when data or resources are limited. Austral Ecol. 2015;40(1):1-11.
11. EFSA (European Food and Safety Authority). Application of systematic review methodology to food and safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA J. 2010;8(6):1637.
12. Frampton GK, Livoreil B, Petrokofsky G. Eligibility screening in evidence synthesis of environmental management topics. Environ Evid. 2017 (in press).
13. Glanville J. Searching bibliographic databases. In: Cooper HC, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, editors. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2017.
14. Giustini D, Boulos MNK. Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Online J Public Health Inf. 2013;5(2):1-9.
15. Grindlay DJC, Brennan ML, Dean RS. Searching the veterinary literature: a comparison of the coverage of veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases. J Vet Med Educ. 2012;39(4):404-12.
16. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV. Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology. 1999;80:1142-9.
17. Haddaway NR. The use of web-scraping software in searching for grey literature. Grey J. 2015;11(3):186-90.
18. Haddaway NR, Bayliss HR. Shades of grey: two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation. Biol Conserv. 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.018.
19. Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kirk S. The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(9):e0138237.
20. Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kirk S. A rapid method to increase transparency and efficiency in web-based searches. Environ Evid. 2017;6:1. doi: 10.1186/s13750-016-0079-2.
21. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley; 2011.
22. Holst R, Funk CJ. State of the art of expert searching: results of a Medical Library association survey. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(1):45-52.
23. Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke MJ, Egger M. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000010.pub3.
24. James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ Evid. 2016;5:7.
25. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias of controlled trials: an empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):115-23.
26. Kugley S, Wade A, Thomas J, Mahood Q, Klint-Jørgensen AM, Hammerstrøm K, Sathe N. Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews. Campbell Syst Rev. 2016 (Supplement 1).
27. Land M, Granéli W, Grimwall A, Hoffmann CC, Mitsch WJ, Tonderski KS, Verhoeven JTA. How effective are created or restored freshwater wetlands for nitrogen and phosphorus removal? A systematic review protocol. Environ Evid. 2013;2:16.
28. Leimu R, Koricheva J. Cumulative meta-analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2004. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2828.
29. Leimu R, Koricheva J. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends Ecol Evol. 2005;20(1):28-32.
30. Lortie CJ, Aarssen LW, Budden AE, Koricheva JK, Leimu R, Tregenza T. Publication bias and merit in ecology. Oikos. 2007;116:1247-53.
31. Mahood Q, van Eerd D, Irvin E. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Res Synth Methods. 2014;3:221-34.
32. McKinnon MC, Cheng SH, Dupre S, Edmond J, Garside R, Glew L, Holland MB, Levine E, Masuda YJ, Miller DC, Oliveira I, Revenaz J, Roe D, Shamer S, Wilkie D, Wongbusarakum S, Woodhouse E. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ Evid. 2016;5:8.
33. Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz N, Lyles CM. Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioural interventions (2000-2010); are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible? Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:116-30.
34. Ojanen M, Miller D, Zhou W, Mshale B, Mwangi E, Petrokovsky G. What are the environmental impacts of property rights regimes in forests, fisheries and rangelands? A systematic review protocol. Environ Evid J. 2014;3:19.
35. Ortega JL. Academic search engines: a quantitative outlook. Oxford: Chandos Publ; 2014.
36. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences. A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006.
37. Pham B, Klassen TP, Lawson ML, Moher D. Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(8):769-76.
38. Priesnitz KU, Vaasen A, Gathmann A. Baseline susceptibility of different European lepidopteran and coleopteran pests to Bt proteins expressed in Bt Maize: a systematic review. Environ Evid. 2016. doi: 10.1186/s13750-016-0077-4.
39. Rader T, Mann M, Stansfield C, Cooper C, Sampson M. Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of common issues. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:98-115.
40. Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Chapter 1. Publication bias in meta-analysis. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, editors. Publication bias in meta-analysis - prevention, assessment and adjustments. London: Wiley; 2005. p. 2-7.
41. Saleh AA, Ratajeski MA, Bertolet M. Grey literature searching for health sciences systematic reviews: a prospective study of time spent and resources utilised. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2014;9(3):28-50.
42. Sayers A. Tips and tricks in performing a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(542):759.
43. Schindler S, Livoreil B, Pinto IS, Araujo RM, Zulka KP, Pullin AS, Santamaria L, Kropik M, Fernandez-Mendez P, Wrbka T. The network BiodiversityKnowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments. Biodivers Conserv. 2016;25(7):1301-18.
44. Smart JM, Burling D. Radiology and the Internet: a systematic review of patient information resources. Clin Radiol. 2001;56(11):867-70.
45. Söderström B, Hedlund K, Jackson LE, Kätterer T, Lugato E, Thomsen IK, Jørgensen HB. What are the effects of agricultural management on soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks? Environ Evid. 2014;3:2.
46. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, Hing C, Kwok CS, Pang C, Harvey I. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):iii, ix-xi.
47. Zhang L, Sampson M, McGowan J. Reporting the role of expert searcher in cochrane reviews. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2006;1(4):3-16.