Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements

Health Information and Libraries Journal

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 202-222

  Sutton, Anthea ^a   Clowes, Mark ^a   Preston, Louise ^a   Booth, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

information retrieval; information science; literature searching; overview; search strategies

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; INFORMATICIAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION SCIENCE; MEDLINE; ORGANIZATION; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNCERTAINTY; LITERATURE; PROCEDURES;

HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85072513119     PISSN: 14711834     EISSN: 14711842     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hir.12276     Document Type: Review

References (130)

1. Arnold, R., & Fletcher, D. (2012). A research synthesis and taxonomic classification of the organizational stressors encountered by sport performers. Journal of Sport Exercise Psychology, 34, 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.3.397
2. Aveyard, H., & Bradbury-Jones, C. (2019). An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: Findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19, 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0751-7
3. Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
4. Barroso, J., Gollop, C. J., Sandelowski, M., Meynell, J., Pearce, P. F., & Collins, L. J. (2003). The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25, 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945902250034
5. Barr-Walker, J. (2017). Evidence-based information needs of public health workers: A systematized review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.109
6. Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13, 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024320
7. Beale, S., Duffy, S., Glanville, J., Lefebvre, C., Wright, D., McCool, R., Varley, D., Boachie, C., Fraser, C., Harbour, J., & Smith, L. (2014). Choosing and using methodological search filters: Searchers’ views. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 31, 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12062
8. Berg, R. C., & Nanavati, J. (2016). Realist review: Current practice and future prospects. Journal of Research Practice, 12, 1.
9. Booth, A. (2006). “Brimful of STARLITE”: Toward standards for reporting literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94, 421.
10. Booth, A. (2010). How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 26, 431–435. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462310000966
11. Booth, A. (2015). EVIDENT Guidance for reviewing the evidence: A compendium of methodological literature and websites. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842
12. Booth, A. (2016). Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews, 5, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
13. Booth, A., & Carroll, C. (2015). Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: Is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Information & Libraries Journal, 32, 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12108
14. Booth, A., Harris, J., Croot, E., Springett, J., Campbell, F., & Wilkins, E. (2013). Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: Case study (CLUSTER). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 118. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-118
15. Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G. J., Mozygemba, K., Refolo, P., Sacchini, D., Tummers, M., & Rehfuess, E. (2016a). Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. https://www.integrate-hta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Guidance-on-choosing-qualitative-evidence-synthesis-methods-for-use-in-HTA-of-complex-interventions.pdf
16. Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016b). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: Sage.
17. Booth, A., Wright, J., & Briscoe, S. (2018). Scoping and searching to support realist approaches doing realist research. London: Sage.
18. Briscoe, S. (2015). Web searching for systematic reviews: A case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme. BMC Research Notes, 16, 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1079-y
19. Briscoe, S. (2017). A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods, 9, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1275
20. Briscoe, S., Cooper, C., Glanville, J., & Lefebvre, C. (2017). The loss of the NHS EED and DARE databases and the effect on evidence synthesis and evaluation. Research Synthesis Methods, 8, 256–257.
21. Brunton, V. J., Stansfield, C., Caird, J., & Thomas, J. (2017). Finding relevant studies. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage.
22. Byrne, J. A. (2016). Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2
23. Campbell, R., Pound, P., Morgan, M., Daker-White, G., Britten, N., Pill, R., Yardley, L., Pope, C., & Donovan, J. (2011). Evaluating meta-ethnography: Systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technology Assessment, 15, 1–164. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15430
24. Carroll, C., Booth, A., Leaviss, J., & Rick, J. (2013). “Best fit” framework synthesis: Refining the method. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-37
25. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009). CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf
26. Chatterley, T., & Dennett, L. (2012). Utilisation of search filters in systematic reviews of prognosis questions. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 29, 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12004
27. Clowes, M. (2017). Using visualisation in scoping the literature for a prognostic HTA. Paper presented at the HTAi 2017 Annual Meeting, Rome, Italy.
28. Cook, C. N., Nichols, S. J., Webb, J. A., Fuller, R. A., & Richards, R. M. (2017). Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: A guide for decision makers and scientists. Biological Conservation, 213, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.004
29. Cooper, C., Booth, A., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2017a). A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: A methodological review. Systematic Reviews, 28, 234. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0625-1
30. Cooper, C., Lovell, R., Husk, K., Booth, A., & Garside, R. (2017b). Supplementary search methods were more effective and offered better value than bibliographic database searching: A case study from public health and environmental enhancement. Research Synthesis Methods, 9, 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1286
31. COSMIN. (n.d.) Guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments. Retrieved from https://www.cosmin.nl/tools/guideline-conducting-systematic-review-outcome-measures/?portfolioCats=19
32. Crandell, J. L., Voils, C. I., & Sandelowski, M. (2012). Bayesian approaches to the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research findings. In Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach (pp. 137–159). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119959847.ch7
33. de, Vet, H. C. W., Eisinga, A., Riphagen, I. I., Aertgeerts, B., & Pewsner, D. (2008). Chapter 7: Searching for studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 0.4 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Retrieved from https://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.sdt/files/public/uploads/Chapter07-Searching-%28September-2008%29.pdf
34. Denison, H. J., Dodds, R. M., Ntani, G., Cooper, R., Cooper, C., Sayer, A. A., & Baird, J. (2013). How to get started with a systematic review in epidemiology: An introductory guide for early career researchers. Archives of Public Health, 71, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/0778-7367-71-21
35. Dequen, P., Sutton, A. J., Scott, D. A., & Abrams, K. R. (2014). Searching for indirect evidence and extending the network of studies for network meta-analysis: Case study in venous thromboembolic events prevention following elective total knee replacement surgery. Value in Health, 17, 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.02.013
36. Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581960501000110
37. Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., … Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 35. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
38. Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Retrieved from https://www.nccmt.ca/capacity-development/rapid-review-guidebook
39. Duncan, V., et al. (2017). Working with a librarian on a realist review: The RAMESES Project. Retrieved from http://www.ramesesproject.org/media/RAMESES_II_Working_with_a_librarian.pdf
40. Edmunds Otter, M. L., Wright, J. M., & King, N. V. (2017). Developing the librarians’ role in supporting grant applications and reducing waste in research: Outcomes from a literature review and survey in the NIHR Research Design Service. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23, 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1330219
41. El Sherif, R., Pluye, P., Gore, G., Granikov, V., & Hong, Q. N. (2016). Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104, 47–51. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.007
42. Elliott, J., Sim, I., Thomas, J., Owens, N., Dooley, G., Riis, J., … Mavergames, C. (2014a). # CochraneTech: Technology and the future of systematic reviews. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ED000091. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000091
43. Elliott, J. H., Turner, T., Clavisi, O., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P., Mavergames, C., & Gruen, R. L. (2014b). Living systematic reviews: An emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Medicine, 11, e1001603.
44. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). (2017). Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness. EUnetHTA methodological guidance version 1.2. https://www.eunethta.eu/process-of-information-retrieval-for-systematic-reviews-and-health-technology-assessments-on-clinical-effectiveness
45. Foster, M. J. (2018). From the office of a systematic review consultant. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 11, 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586717749905
46. France, E., & the eMERGe Project Team and Advisors. (2018). Introducing the first bespoke Meta-ethnography Reporting Guidance (eMERGe). In IIQM 24th Annual Qualitative Health Research Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 27.10.2018–29.10.2018.
47. France, E. F., Ring, N., Thomas, R., Noyes, J., Maxwell, M., & Jepson, R. (2014). A methodological systematic review of what's wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-119
48. Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science, 5, 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
49. Gardener, A. C., Ewing, G., Kuhn, I., & Farquhar, M. (2018). Support needs of patients with COPD: A systematic literature search and narrative review. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 13, 1021. https://doi.org/10.2147/copd.s155622
50. Gasparyan, A. Y., Ayvazyan, L., Blackmore, H., & Kitas, G. D. (2011). Writing a narrative biomedical review: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatology International, 31, 1409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3
51. Geersing, G., Bouwmeester, W., Zuithoff, P., Spijker, R., Leeflang, M. & Moons, K. (2012). Search filters for finding prognostic and diagnostic prediction studies in Medline to enhance systematic reviews. PLoS ONE, 7, e32844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032844
52. J. Glanville, C. Lefebvre, & K. Wright (Eds.). (2008). ISSG search filter resource. York, UK: The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group; [updated 2019 May 7; cited 30 May 2019]. Retrieved from: https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home
53. Golder, S., & Wright, K. (2016). Searching evidence. In Umbrella reviews (pp. 95–106). Chester: Springer International Publishing.
54. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
55. Greenhalgh, T., & Shaw, S. (2017). Understanding heart failure; explaining telehealth–a hermeneutic systematic review. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 17, 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-017-0594-2
56. Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., et al. (2013–2018). The RAMESES project. Retrieved from http://www.ramesesproject.org/Standards_and_Training_materials.php
57. Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2011). Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
58. Hannes, K., & Macaitis, K. (2012). A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: Update on a review of published papers. Qualitative Research, 12, 402–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111432992
59. Harris, M. R. (2005). The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: A case study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93, 81.
60. Harris, J. L., Booth, A., Cargo, M., Hannes, K., Hardend, A., Flemming, K., … Noyes, J. (2017). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance series-paper 6: Methods for question formulation, searching and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 97, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.023
61. Hawkins, N., Scott, D. A., & Woods, B. (2009). How far do you go? Efficient searching for indirect evidence. Medical Decision Making, 29, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x08330120
62. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0[updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
63. Hoaglin, D. C., Hawkins, N., Jansen, J. P., Scott, D. A., Itzler, R., Cappelleri, J. C., … Barrett, A. (2011). Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 2. Value in Health, 14, 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011
64. HTAi IRG. (2011). Summarized research in information retrieval for HTA (SuRE Info). Retrieved from http://vortal.htai.org/index.php?q=sure-info
65. James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 2016(5), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6
66. Kable, A. K., Pich, J., & Maslin-Prothero, S. E. (2012). A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: A 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Education Today, 32, 878–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.022
67. Kastner, M., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Straus, S. E., & Tricco, A. C. (2016). Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.022
68. Kastner, M., Tricco, A. C., Soobiah, C., Lillie, E., Perrier, L., Horsley, T., … Straus, S. (2012). What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.022
69. Kaunelis, D., & Glanville, J. (2017). Cost and economic evaluation. Summarized Research in Information Retrieval for HTA (SuRE Info). Retrieved from http://vortal.htai.org/?q=node/336
70. Kavanagh, J., Campbell, F., Harden, A., & Thomas, J. (2012). Mixed methods synthesis: A worked example. In K. Hannes & C. Lockwood (Ed.), Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach (pp. 113–136). Chicheste: John Wiley & Sons.
71. Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
72. Koffel, J. B. (2015). Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: A cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS ONE, 10, e0125931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
73. Kugley, S., Wade, A., Thomas, J., Mahood, Q., Jørgensen, A. M., Hammerstrøm, K., & Sathe, N. (2016). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell. Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://campbellcollaboration.org/library/searching-for-studies-information-retrieval-guide-campbell-reviews.html
74. Leeflang, M. M., Deeks, J. J., Takwoingi, Y., & Macaskill, P. (2013). Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Systematic Reviews, 2, 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-82
75. Lefebvre, C., Glanville, J., Briscoe, S., Littlewood, A., Marshall, C., Metzendorf, M. I., Noel-Storr, A., Rader, T., Shokraneh, F., Thomas, J., & Wieland, L. S. (2019). Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. Draft version (29 January 2019) for inclusion. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews for interventions. London: Cochrane.
76. Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E., & Glanville, J. (2011). Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from www.handbook.cochrane.org
77. Living Systematic Review Network. (2017). Cochrane living systematic reviews: Interim guidance for pilots (Version 0.3, 21 April 2017). Cochrane, London, UK. Retrieved from: http://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Transform/LSR Interim guidance_v0.3_20170421.pdf
78. Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13, 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062
79. Lockwood, C., Porrit, K., Munn, Z., Rittenmeyer, L., Salmond, S., Bjerrum, M.,…Stannard, D. (2017). Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Retrieved from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
80. Mack, I., Penders, J., Cook, J., Dugmore, J., Mazurak, N., & Enck, P. (2018). Is the impact of starvation on the gut microbiota specific or unspecific to anorexia nervosa? A narrative review based on a systematic literature search. Current Neuropharmacology, 16, 1131–1149. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159X16666180118101354
81. Major, C. H., & Savin-Baden, M. (2010). Chapter 3 Designing the synthesis. In An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the information explosion in social science research. Milton: Routledge.
82. McArthur, A., Klugárová, J., Yan, H., & Florescu, S. (2015). Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13, 188–195. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000060
83. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
84. Moher, D., Stewart, L., & Shekelle, P. (2015). All in the family: Systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Systematic Reviews, 4, 183. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7
85. S. Morton, A. Berg, L. Levit, & J. Eden (Eds.). (2011). Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. XXX: National Academies Press.
86. Mulrow, C. D. (1987). The medical review article: State of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine, 106, 485–488.
87. Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
88. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technological appraisal (PMG 9). London: NICE. Retrieved from https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword
89. 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, 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462310001066
90. Noyes, J., Booth, A., Moore, G., Flemming, K., Tunçalp, Ö., & Shakibazadeh, E. (2019). Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: Clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Global Health, 4(Suppl. 1), e000893.
91. Oliver, S. (2015). Advantages of concurrent preparation and reporting of systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 108, 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076815575231
92. O'Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., Miwa, M., & Ananiadou, S. (2015). Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: A systematic review of current approaches. Systematic Reviews, 4, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-5
93. Paisley, S., Seva, J., Stevenson, M., Archer, R., Preston, L., Chilchott, J., & Thornhill, M. (2016). Identifying potential early biomarkers of acute myocardial infarction in the biomedical literature: A comparison of text mining and manual sifting techniques. Poster presented at the ISPOR 19th Annual European Congress, Vienna, Austria. Abstract retrieved from: http://scharr.dept.shef.ac.uk/ikt/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/IDENTIFYING-POTENTIAL-EARLY-BIOMARKERS-OF-ACUTE-MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION.pdf
94. Paré, G., Trudel, M. C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52, 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
95. Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). The retrieval and assessment of primary research. In Methods in nursing research: Meta-study of qualitative health research (pp. 33–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985017
96. Perryman, C. L. (2016). Mapping studies. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104, 79–82. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.014
97. Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Brunton, G., Hunt, H., & Estcourt, L. (2017). Selecting and implementing overview methods: Implications from five exemplar overviews. Systematic Reviews, 6, 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3
98. Preston, L., Carroll, C., Gardois, P., Paisley, S., & Kaltenthaler, E. (2015). Improving search efficiency for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: An exploratory study to assess the viability of limiting to MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference checking. Systematic Reviews, 4, 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0074-7
99. Relevo, R., & Balshem, H. (2011) Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC021-EF. Available at https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/methods-guidance-finding-evidence_methods.pdf
100. Rethlefsen, M., Ayala, A. P., Kirtley, S., Koffel, J., & Waffenschmidt, S. (2019). PRISMA-S Draft 1. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/7ncys
101. Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Lefebvre, C., Moher, D., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2008). PRESS: Peer review of electronic search strategies. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Retrieved from https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/press
102. Saul, J. E., Willis, C. D., Bitz, J., & Best, A. (2013). A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: Rapid realist review. Implementation Science, 8, 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-103
103. Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17, 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258609
104. Shemilt, I., Simon, A., Hollands, G. J., Marteau, T. M., Ogilvie, D., O'Mara-Eves, A., … Thomas, J. (2014). Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: Use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1093
105. Slutsky, J., Atkins, D., Chang, S., & Sharp, B. A. C. (2010). AHRQ series paper 1: Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 481–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.009
106. Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-15
107. Spencer, A. J., & Eldredge, J. D. (2018). Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: A scoping review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82
108. Stansfield, C., Dickson, K., & Bangpan, M. (2016). Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: How can we be systematic? Systematic Reviews, 5, 191. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9
109. Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
110. Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & de Vet, H. C. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1115–1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5
111. The Cochrane Collaboration. (2019). Cochrane review. In The Cochrane Glossary. Retrieved from https://community.cochrane.org/glossary#letter-C
112. The Pubmed Health Team. (2015). Systematic review methods filter at PubMed. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/researchers/pubmed-systematic-review-methods-filter/
113. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
114. Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
115. Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Kastner, M., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., … Straus, S. E. (2016a). Knowledge synthesis methods for generating or refining theory: A scoping review reveals that little guidance is available. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.021
116. Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, 215(13), 224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
117. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., … Straus, S. E. (2016b). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
118. Tricco, A. C., Soobiah, C., Antony, J., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., Lillie, E., … Welch, V. (2016c). A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030
119. Tricco, A. C., Tetzlaff, J., & Moher, D. (2011). The art and science of knowledge synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007
120. Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Ghassemi, M., Nincic, V., Lillie, E., Page, M. J., … Strausa, S. E. (2018). Same family, different species: Methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 96, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.014
121. Tsafnat, G., Glasziou, P., Choong, M. K., Dunn, A., Galgani, F., & Coiera, E. (2014). Systematic review automation technologies. Systematic Reviews, 3, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-74
122. UK Civil Service. (2014). Rapid evidence assessment toolkit. National Archive. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402162847/http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/networks/gsr/resources-and-guidance/rapid-evidence-assessment/planning-a-rea
123. Voils, C., Hassselblad, V., Crandell, J., Chang, Y., Lee, E., & Sandelowski, M. (2009). A Bayesian method for the synthesis of evidence from qualitative and quantitative reports: The example of antiretroviral medication adherence. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 14, 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008186
124. Weed, M. (2005). “Meta Interpretation”: A method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6, 37. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.1.508
125. Whittemore, R., Chao, A., Jang, M., Minges, K. E., & Park, C. (2014). Methods for knowledge synthesis: An overview. Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care, 43, 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.05.014
126. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
127. Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (p. 38). ACM. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.709.9164&rep=rep1&type=pdf
128. Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013a). RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Medicine, 11, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-20
129. Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013b). RAMESES publication standards: Realist syntheses. BMC Medicine, 11, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-21
130. Wright, J., & Walwyn, R. (2016). Literature search methods for an overview of reviews (‘umbrella’ reviews or ‘review of reviews’). CILIP Health Libraries Group Conference; 15-16th Sept 2016; Scarborough, UK. Retrieved from https://www.cilip.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/judy_wright.pdf