PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2021, Pages

  Rethlefsen, Melissa L ^a   Kirtley, Shona ^b   Waffenschmidt, Siw ^c   Ayala, Ana Patricia ^d   Moher, David ^e   Page, Matthew J ^f   Koffel, Jonathan B ^g   Blunt, Heather ^h   Brigham, Tara ^h   Chang, Steven ^h   Clark, Justin ^h   Conway, Aislinn ^h   Couban, Rachel ^h   de Kock, Shelley ^h   Farrah, Kelly ^h   Fehrmann, Paul ^h   Foster, Margaret ^h   Fowler, Susan A ^h   Glanville, Julie ^h   Harris, Elizabeth ^h   Hoffecker, Lilian ^h   Isojarvi, Jaana ^h   Kaunelis, David ^h   Ket, Hans ^h   Levay, Paul ^h   Lyon, Jennifer ^h   McGowan, Jessie ^h   Murad, M Hassan ^h   Nicholson, Joey ^h   Pannabecker, Virginia ^h   Paynter, Robin ^h   Pinotti, Rachel ^h   Ross White, Amanda ^h   Sampson, Margaret ^h   Shields, Tracy ^h   Stevens, Adrienne ^h   Sutton, Anthea ^h   Weinfurter, Elizabeth ^h   Wright, Kath ^h   Young, Sarah ^h   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY IN HEALTH CARE IQWIG   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^f MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^h NONE

Author keywords

Information retrieval; Literature search; Reporting guidelines; Reproducibility; Search strategies; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DELPHI STUDY; EDITOR; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CHECKLIST; CONSENSUS; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH;

CHECKLIST; CONSENSUS; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 85100478676     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z     Document Type: Article

References (145)

1. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
2. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, et al. Searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: version 6.0. 2019. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04.
3. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. 1.3 Undertaking the review. 2009; https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan, 2020.
4. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, Marshall C, Metzendorf MI. Technical supplement to chapter 4: searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: version 6.0. 2019. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook.
5. Relevo R, Balshem H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1168–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.022
6. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2011. https://doi.org/10.17226/13059.
7. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness: guideline; version 2.0. 2019; https://eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/EUnetHTA_Guideline_Information_Retrieval_v2-0.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan, 2020.
8. 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
9. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, 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
10. Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):263.
11. Koffel JB, Rethlefsen ML. Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163309. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163309
12. Faggion CM Jr, Wu YC, Tu YK, Wasiak J. Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery. Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1062):20150878. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150878
13. Layton D. A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: are systematic reviews actually systematic? Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30(1):13–21. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5193
14. Yaylali IE, Alacam T. Critical assessment of search strategies in systematic reviews in endodontics. J Endod. 2016;42(6):854–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.02.018
15. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
16. Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125931. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
17. 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 Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):617–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
18. Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(4):267–77. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004
19. 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
20. 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
21. Franco JVA, Garrote VL, Escobar Liquitay CM, Vietto V. Identification of problems in search strategies in Cochrane Reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(3):408–16. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1302
22. Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R. Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(2):210–21. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2019.567
23. Sampson M, McGowan J. Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1057–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.007
24. Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz N, Lyles CM. Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible? Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(2):116–30. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1098
25. 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(2):98–115. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1097
26. Briscoe S. Web searching for systematic reviews: a case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme. BMC Res Note. 2015;8:153. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-015-1079-y
27. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev. 2015;4:183. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7
28. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr. 2009;26(2):91–108. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
29. Rethlefsen ML, Koffel JB, Kirtley S. PRISMA-Search (PRISMA-S) extension to PRISMA development protocol. 2016; https://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Protocol-PRISMA-S-Delphi.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan, 2020.
30. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
31. Hsu C, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12:10. https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90.
32. Rethlefsen ML, Koffel JB, Kirtley S, Ayala AP, Waffenschmidt S. PRISMA-S: PRISMA Search Reporting Extension. 2019; 10.17605/OSF.IO/YGN9W. Accessed 5 Feb, 2020.
33. Hypothesis. 2020; https://web.hypothes.is/. Accessed 3 Jan, 2020.
34. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: study protocol. 2018; http://osf.io/2v7mk. Accessed 13 Feb, 2020.
35. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. MetaArXiv Preprints 2020; https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2. Accessed 25 Oct 2020.
36. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7647
37. PRISMA: Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 2015; http://prisma-statement.org/. Accessed 13 Feb, 2020.
38. Schneider KJ, Leddy JJ, Guskiewicz KM, et al. Rest and treatment/rehabilitation following sport-related concussion: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(12):930–4. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097475
39. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Searching for studies. 2011; http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_6/6_searching_for_studies.htm. Accessed 25 Nov, 2014.
40. Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):245. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y
41. National Library of Medicine. MEDLINE®: description of the database 2019; https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/medline.html. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
42. Embase content. 2019; https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/embase-biomedical-research/embase-coverage-and-content. Accessed 28 February, 2019.
43. Scopus. 2020; http://www.scopus.com. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
44. PsycINFO. 2020; https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
45. EconLit. 2020; https://www.aeaweb.org/econlit/. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
46. BIREME - PAHO - WHO Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information. LILACS. 2020; http://lilacs.bvsalud.org/en/. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
47. World Health Organization. African Index Medicus. 2020; http://indexmedicus.afro.who.int/. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
48. Craven J, Jefferies J, Kendrick J, Nicholls D, Boynton J, Frankish R. A comparison of searching the Cochrane library databases via CRD, Ovid and Wiley: implications for systematic searching and information services. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31(1):54–63. DOI: 10.1111/hir.12046
49. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Searching Embase and MEDLINE by using only major descriptors or title and abstract fields: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):200. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0864-9
50. Younger P, Boddy K. When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):126–35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00785.x
51. Fraser C, Murray A, Burr J. Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:41. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-41
52. De Cagna F, Fusar-Poli L, Damiani S, et al. The role of intranasal oxytocin in anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2019;17(1):1–11. DOI: 10.9758/cpn.2019.17.1.1
53. Rutjes AW, Juni P, da Costa BR, Trelle S, Nuesch E, Reichenbach S. Viscosupplementation for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(3):180–91. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-3-201208070-00473
54. Potthast R, Vervolgyi V, McGauran N, Kerekes MF, Wieseler B, Kaiser T. Impact of inclusion of industry trial results registries as an information source for systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e92067. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092067
55. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(3):252–60. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa065779
56. Baudard M, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Perrodeau E, Boutron I. Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ. 2017;356:j448. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j448
57. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Carr S. Trial reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov - the final rule. N Engl J Med 2016;375(20):1998-2004.
58. Anderson ML, Chiswell K, Peterson ED, Tasneem A, Topping J, Califf RM. Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(11):1031–9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1409364
59. DeVito NJ, Bacon S, Goldacre B. Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395(10221):361–9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33220-9
60. Stockdale J, Cassell J, Ford E. “Giving something back”: a systematic review and ethical enquiry into public views on the use of patient data for research in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Wellcome Open Res. 2018;3:6. DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13531.1
61. Mascarenhas M, Garasia S, Berthiaume P, et al. A scoping review of published literature on chikungunya virus. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0207554. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207554
62. Gates M, Wingert A, Featherstone R, Samuels C, Simon C, Dyson MP. Impact of fatigue and insufficient sleep on physician and patient outcomes: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(9):e021967. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021967
63. Song F, Parekh-Bhurke S, Hooper L, et al. Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:79. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-79
64. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350(9074):326–9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02419-7
65. Stansfield C, Dickson K, Bangpan M. Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic? Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):191. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9
66. Farrah K, Mierzwinski-Urban M. Almost half of references in reports on new and emerging nondrug health technologies are grey literature. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(1):43–8. DOI: 10.5195/JMLA.2019.539
67. Piasecki J, Waligora M, Dranseika V. Google search as an additional source in systematic reviews. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(2):809–10.
68. Dax the duck. Measuring the “filter bubble”: how Google is influencing what you click. DuckDuckGo Blog 2018; https://spreadprivacy.com/google-filter-bubble-study/.
69. Scherer RW, Meerpohl JJ, Pfeifer N, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;11:MR000005.
70. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1228–31. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02786-0
71. ProceedingsFirst. 2018; https://help.oclc.org/Discovery_and_Reference/FirstSearch/FirstSearch_databases/ProceedingsFirst. Accessed 28 February, 2019.
72. Directory of Published Papers. InterDok Media Services LLC; 2019. http://www.interdok.com/search_paper.php.
73. Abstract Archive. International AIDS Society; 2019. http://www.abstract-archive.org/.
74. Foster MJ, Jewell ST. Assembling the pieces of a systematic review: guide for librarians. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2017.
75. Stephens RJ, Dettmer MR, Roberts BW, et al. Practice patterns and outcomes associated with early sedation depth in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(3):471–9. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002885
76. Kunneman M, Gionfriddo MR, Toloza FJK, et al. Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;102(3):452–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.11.003
77. Spurling GK, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Foxlee R, Farley R. Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:CD004417.
78. Wright K, Golder S, Rodriguez-Lopez R. Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:73. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-73
79. Zarychanski R, Turgeon AF, McIntyre L, Fergusson DA. Erythropoietin-receptor agonists in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2007;177(7):725–34. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.071055
80. Degenhardt L, Peacock A, Colledge S, et al. Global prevalence of injecting drug use and sociodemographic characteristics and prevalence of HIV, HBV, and HCV in people who inject drugs: a multistage systematic review. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(12):e1192–207. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30375-3
81. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c365
82. Hodkinson A, Dietz KC, Lefebvre C, et al. The use of clinical study reports to enhance the quality of systematic reviews: a survey of systematic review authors. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):117. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0766-x
83. Musini VM, Lawrence KA, Fortin PM, Bassett K, Wright JM. Blood pressure lowering efficacy of renin inhibitors for primary hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD007066.
84. Samarasekera N, Smith C, Al-Shahi SR. The association between cerebral amyloid angiopathy and intracerebral haemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012;83(3):275–81. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2011-300371
85. Tham T, Machado R, Khaymovich J, Costantino P. Detection of HPV16, HPV18, p16, and E6/E7 MRNA in nasopharyngeal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. bioRxiv 2018:401554. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/08/27/401554.full.pdf.
86. Lin J, Wilbur WJ. PubMed related articles: a probabilistic topic-based model for content similarity. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:423. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-423
87. Clarivate Analytics. Related records. Web of Science Core Collection Help 2018; https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_related_records.html. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
88. Bennett KG, Berlin NL, MacEachern MP, Buchman SR, Preminger BA, Vercler CJ. The ethical and professional use of social media in surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(3):388e–98e. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004692
89. Varley-Campbell J, Cooper C, Wilkerson D, Wardle S, Greeves J, Lorenc T. Sex-specific changes in physical performance following military training: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2018;48(11):2623–40. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-0983-4
90. Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins J, Lasserson T, Tovey D. Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews: version 2.1. 2011; https://sti.cochrane.org/sites/sti.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/Methodological%20standards%20for%20the%20conduct%20of%20Cochrane%20Intervention%20Reviews.PDF. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
91. CADTH. Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. 2019; https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/grey-matters. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
92. Higgins J, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Churchill R. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. 2019; https://community.cochrane.org/mecir-manual. Accessed 3 Jan 2020.
93. Kim Y. Fostering scientists’ data sharing behaviors via data repositories, journal supplements, and personal communication methods. Inform Process Manag. 2017;53(4):871–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2017.03.003
94. National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubMed Central. 2020; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/. Accessed 9 Jan 2020.
95. Thomas LH, Coupe J, Cross LD, Tan AL, Watkins CL. Interventions for treating urinary incontinence after stroke in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;2:CD004462.
96. Speer K, Upton D, Semple S, McKune A. Systemic low-grade inflammation in post-traumatic stress disorder: a systematic review. J Inflamm Res. 2018;11:111–21. DOI: 10.2147/JIR.S155903
97. Rudmik L, Soler ZM. Medical therapies for adult chronic sinusitis: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;314(9):926–39. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.7544
98. Joseph MS, Tincopa MA, Walden P, Jackson E, Conte ML, Rubenfire M. The impact of structured exercise programs on metabolic syndrome and its components: a systematic review. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2019;12:2395–404. DOI: 10.2147/DMSO.S211776
99. Lumba-Brown A, Yeates KO, Sarmiento K, et al. Diagnosis and management of mild traumatic brain injury in children: a systematic review. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(11):e182847. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2847
100. Kugley S, Wade A, Thomas J, et al. Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Campbell Syst Rev. 2017;13(1):1–73. DOI: 10.4073/cmg.2016.1
101. Iansavichene AE, Sampson M, McGowan J, Ajiferuke IS. Should systematic reviewers search for randomized, controlled trials published as letters? Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(9):714–5. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-9-200805060-00023
102. Cooper C, Booth A, Varley-Campbell J, Britten N, Garside R. Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):85. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3
103. Craven J, Levay P. Recording database searches for systematic reviews - what is the value of adding a narrative to peer-review checklists? A case study of NICE interventional procedures guidance. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2011;6(4):72–87. DOI: 10.18438/B8CD09
104. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Search filters. 2011; https://www.sign.ac.uk/search-filters.html.
105. Karagiannis T, Paschos P, Paletas K, Matthews DR, Tsapas A. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the clinical setting: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e1369. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e1369
106. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Beale S, et al. Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(69):1–148. DOI: 10.3310/hta21690
107. Damarell RA, May N, Hammond S, Sladek RM, Tieman JJ. Topic search filters: a systematic scoping review. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(1):4–40. DOI: 10.1111/hir.12244
108. McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges T. Retrieving randomized controlled trials from medline: a comparison of 38 published search filters. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(3):187–202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00827.x
109. InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group. The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group Search Filter Resource. 2020; https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
110. Health Information Research Unit. Search filters for MEDLINE in Ovid syntax and the PubMed translation. 2016; http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU_Hedges_MEDLINE_Strategies.aspx. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
111. Waters E, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Hall BJ, et al. Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(12):Cd00187.
112. Cahill K, Lancaster T. Workplace interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(2):Cd003440.
113. Freak-Poli RL, Cumpston M, Peeters A, Clemes SA. Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):Cd009209.
114. Dobbins M, Husson H, DeCorby K, LaRocca RL. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):Cd007651.
115. Guerra PH, Nobre MR, da Silveira JA, Taddei JA. School-based physical activity and nutritional education interventions on body mass index: a meta-analysis of randomised community trials - project PANE. Prev Med. 2014;61:81–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.01.005
116. Jaime PC, Lock K. Do school based food and nutrition policies improve diet and reduce obesity? Prev Med. 2009;48(1):45–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.10.018
117. Thomas RE, McLellan J, Perera R. School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):Cd001293.
118. Foxcroft D, Ireland D, Lowe G, Breen R. Primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(9):Cd003024.
119. Wolfenden L, Jones J, Williams CM, et al. Strategies to improve the implementation of healthy eating, physical activity and obesity prevention policies, practices or programmes within childcare services. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:Cd011779.
120. Wolfenden L, Nathan NK, Sutherland R, et al. Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting risk factors for chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11:Cd011677.
121. Wolfenden L, Goldman S, Stacey FG, et al. Strategies to improve the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting tobacco, alcohol, diet, physical activity and obesity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;11:CD012439.
122. White CM, Ip S, McPheeters M, et al. Using existing systematic reviews to replace de novo processes in conducting comparative effectiveness reviews. In: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville (MD); 2008.
123. Lopez-Olivo MA, Tayar JH, Martinez-Lopez JA, et al. Risk of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic therapy: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012;308(9):898–908. DOI: 10.1001/2012.jama.10857
124. Sampson M, Shojania KG, Garritty C, Horsley T, Ocampo M, Moher D. Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(6):531–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.004
125. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):224–33. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179
126. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, et al. Updating systematic reviews: AHRQ publication no 07-0087. AHRQ Technical Reviews 2007; 16:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44099/pdf/TOC.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb, 2020.
127. Bhaskar V, Chan HL, MacEachern M, Kripfgans OD. Updates on ultrasound research in implant dentistry: a systematic review of potential clinical indications. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47(6):20180076. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20180076
128. Beller EM, Chen JK, Wang UL, 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
129. Velez MP, Hamel C, Hutton B, et al. Care plans for women pregnant using assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review. Reprod Health. 2019;16(1):9. DOI: 10.1186/s12978-019-0667-z
130. Relevo R, Paynter R. Peer review of search strategies. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care 2012; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK98353/.
131. Spry C, Mierzwinski-Urban M. The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(4):521–6. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1330
132. Banno M, Harada Y, Taniguchi M, et al. Exercise can improve sleep quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2018;6:e5172. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5172
133. Tsamalaidze L, Stauffer JA, Brigham T, Asbun HJ. Postsplenectomy thrombosis of splenic, mesenteric, and portal vein (PST-SMPv): a single institutional series, comprehensive systematic review of a literature and suggested classification. Am J Surg. 2018;216(6):1192–204. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.01.073
134. Barakat S, Boehmer K, Abdelrahim M, et al. Does health coaching grow capacity in cancer survivors? A systematic review. Popul Health Manag. 2018;21(1):63–81. DOI: 10.1089/pop.2017.0040
135. Qi X, Yang M, Ren W, et al. Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71838. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071838
136. Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(3):240–3. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014
137. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module. Syst Rev. 2015;4:6. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-6
138. Kwon Y, Lemieux M, McTavish J, Wathen N. Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015;103(4):184–8. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.004
139. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850
140. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84. DOI: 10.7326/M14-2385
141. Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1657–65. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.3656
142. Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid. 2018;7(1):7. DOI: 10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7
143. Stansfield C, O'Mara-Eves A, Thomas J. Text mining for search term development in systematic reviewing: a discussion of some methods and challenges. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(3):355–65. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1250
144. Hausner E, Guddat C, Hermanns T, Lampert U, Waffenschmidt S. Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;77:118–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.05.002
145. Paynter R, Banez LL, Berliner E, et al. EPC Methods: an exploration of the use of text-mining software in systematic reviews. 2016; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK362044/. Accessed 3 Feb,2020.