Innovation in information retrieval methods for evidence synthesis studies

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 506-509

  Paisley, Suzy ^a   Foster, Margaret J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; AUTOMATION; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; COMPUTER; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LITERATURE; MASS COMMUNICATION; PROCEDURES; TRENDS;

ALGORITHMS; AUTOMATION; COMPUTERS; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85057989692     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1322     Document Type: Editorial

References (25)

1. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. Nuffield Trust. 1972.
2. Higgins, JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011]. Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339(jul21 1):b2535.
4. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340(mar23 1):c332.
5. National Library of Medicine. Index medicus. 1960.
6. Littell JH, White H. The Campbell Collaboration: providing better evidence for a better world. Res Soc Work Pract. 2018;28(1):6-12.
7. What Works Network. What works?: evidence for decision makers. Home Office. 2014.
8. Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(1):1-19.
9. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):28.
10. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision-analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices—modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9-17.
11. Booth A. How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(04):431-435.
12. Yao YY. Information retrieval support systems. In: Bates MJ, ed. Understanding Information Retrieval Systems: Management, Types, and Standards; 2012 CRC.
13. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 2014;11(2):e1001603.
14. O'Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4.
15. Shemilt I, Simon A, Hollands GJ, et al. Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large reviews. Res Syn Meth. 2014;5:31-49.
16. Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. Evaluation of a new method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews. Res Syn Meth. 2018;9:510-520. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1279
17. Spry C, Mierzwinski-Urban M. The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports. Res Syn Meth. 2018;9:521-526. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1330
18. Wood H, O'Connor A, Sargeant J, Glanville J. Information retrieval for systematic reviews in food and feed topics: a narrative review. Res Syn Meth. 2018;9:527-539. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1289
19. Anderson P, Shannon C, Bickett S, Doucette J, Herring P, Kepsel A, Lyons T, Wu L. Systematic reviews and tech mining: a methodological comparison with case study. Res Syn Meth. 2018;9:540-550. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1318
20. Sutton A, Galvan De La Cruz MC, Leaviss J, Booth A. Searching for trial protocols: a comparison of methods. Res Syn Meth. 2018;9:551-560. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1281
21. Isojärvi J, Wood H, Lefebvre C, Glanville J. Challenges of identifying unpublished data from clinical trials: getting the best out of clinical trials registers and other novel sources. Res Syn Meth. 2018;9:561-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1294
22. Rogers M, Bethel A, Abbott R. Locating qualitative studies in dementia on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO: a comparison of search strategies. Res Syn Meth. 2018;9:579-586. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1280
23. Langlois A, Nie JY, Thomas J, Hong QN, Pluye P. Discriminating between empirical studies and nonempirical works using automated text classification. Res Syn Meth. 2018;9:587-601. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1317
24. Marshall IJ, Noel-Storr A, Kuiper J, Thomas J, Wallace BC. Machine learning for identifying randomized controlled trials: an evaluation and practitioner's guide. Res Syn Meth. 2018;9:602-614. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1287
25. Booth A. State of the art, state of the science? Res Syn Meth. 2018;9:615-618. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1324