Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency

Radiation Dose-Volume-Response Relationships for Adverse Events in Childhood Cancer Survivors: Introduction to the Scientific Issues in PENTEC

At its very core, radiation oncology involves a trade-off between the benefits and risks of exposing tumors and normal tissue to relatively high doses of ionizing radiation. This trade-off is particularly critical in childhood cancer survivors (CCS), in whom both benefits and risks can be hugely consequential due to the long life expectancy if the primary cancer is controlled. Estimating the normal tissue-related risks of a specific radiation therapy plan in an individual patient relies on predictive mathematical modeling of empirical data on adverse events. The Pediatric Normal-Tissue Effects in the Clinic (PENTEC) collaborative network was formed to summarize and, when possible, to synthesize dose-volume-response relationships for a range of adverse events incident in CCS based on the literature. Normal-tissue clinical radiation biology in children is particularly challenging for many reasons: (1) Childhood malignancies are relatively uncommon-constituting approximately 1% of new incident cancers in the United States-and biologically heterogeneous, leading to many small series in the literature and large variability within and between series. This creates challenges in synthesizing data across series. (2) CCS are at an elevated risk for a range of adverse health events that are not specific to radiation therapy. Thus, excess relative or absolute risk compared with a reference population becomes the appropriate metric. (3) Various study designs and quantities to express risk are found in the literature, and these are summarized. (4) Adverse effects in CCS often occur 30, 50, or more years after therapy. This limits the information content of series with even very extended follow-up, and lifetime risk estimates are typically extrapolations that become dependent on the mathematical model used. (5) The long latent period means that retrospective dosimetry is required, as individual computed tomography-based radiation therapy plans gradually became available after 1980. (6) Many individual patient-level factors affect outcomes, including age at exposure, attained age, lifestyle exposures, health behaviors, other treatment modalities, dose, fractionation, and dose distribution. (7) Prospective databases with individual patient-level data and radiation dosimetry are being built and will facilitate advances in dose-volume-response modeling. We discuss these challenges and attempts to overcome them in the setting of PENTEC.

Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the reproducibility of biomedical systematic review search strategies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional reproducibility study was conducted on a random sample of 100 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of systematic reviews for which all database searches can be reproduced, operationalized as fulfilling six key Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S) reporting guideline items and having all database searches reproduced within 10% of the number of original results. Key reporting guideline items included database name, multi-database searching, full search strategies, limits and restrictions, date(s) of searches, and total records.

RESULTS

The 100 systematic review articles contained 453 database searches. Only 22 (4.9%) database searches reported all six PRISMA-S items. Forty-seven (10.4%) database searches could be reproduced within 10% of the number of results from the original search; six searches differed by more than 1,000% between the originally reported number of results and the reproduction. Only one systematic review article provided the necessary search details to be fully reproducible.

CONCLUSION

Systematic review search reporting is poor. To correct this will require a multifaceted response from authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and database providers.

Errors to avoid when searching for studies for systematic reviews: A guide for nurse researchers

Systematic reviews aim to provide reliable answers to research questions by identifying and synthesising the available evidence using rigorous methods. This makes systematic reviews a cornerstone of evidence-based practice in healthcare settings. However, despite the avowed aim and importance of systematic reviews, studies have shown that they often include serious flaws, including in the search for studies. In this article, some commonly seen errors in systematic review search strategies are described with the intention of alerting nurse researchers who are planning a systematic review to what should be avoided. These include errors relating to bibliographic databases and supplementary searches, including database selection, free-text searching, controlled vocabulary and structural errors. The paper is framed within the context of older people nursing but has relevance to nurse researchers more widely.

Paperfetcher: A tool to automate handsearching and citation searching for systematic reviews

Systematic reviews are vital instruments for researchers to understand broad trends in a field and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of interventions in addressing specific issues. The quality of a systematic review depends critically on having comprehensively surveyed all relevant literature on the review topic. In addition to database searching, handsearching is an important supplementary technique that helps increase the likelihood of identifying all relevant studies in a literature search. Traditional handsearching requires reviewers to manually browse through a curated list of field-specific journals and conference proceedings to find articles relevant to the review topic. This manual process is not only time-consuming, laborious, costly, and error-prone due to human fatigue, but it also lacks replicability due to its cumbersome manual nature. To address these issues, this paper presents a free and open-source Python package and an accompanying web-app, Paperfetcher, to automate the retrieval of article metadata for handsearching. With Paperfetcher's assistance, researchers can retrieve article metadata from designated journals within a specified time frame in just a few clicks. In addition to handsearching, it also incorporates a beta version of citation searching in both forward and backward directions. Paperfetcher has an easy-to-use interface, which allows researchers to download the metadata of retrieved studies as a list of DOIs or as an RIS file to facilitate seamless import into systematic review screening software. To the best of our knowledge, Paperfetcher is the first tool to automate handsearching with high usability and a multi-disciplinary focus.

Think outside the search box: A comparative study of visual and form-based query builders

Knowledge workers such as healthcare information professionals, legal researchers and librarians need to create and execute search strategies that are comprehensive, transparent and reproducible. The traditional solution is to use proprietary query-building tools provided by literature database vendors. In the majority of cases, these query builders are designed using a form-based paradigm that requires the user to enter keywords and ontology terms on a line-by-line basis and then combine them using Boolean operators. However, recent years have witnessed significant changes in human–computer interaction technologies, and users can now engage with online information systems using a variety of novel data visualisation techniques. In this article, we evaluate a new approach to query building in which users express concepts as objects on a visual canvas and compare this with a traditional form-based query builder in a laboratory-based user study. The results demonstrate the potential of visual interfaces to mitigate some of the shortcomings associated with form-based interfaces and encourage more exploratory search behaviour. They also demonstrate the value of having a temporary ‘scratch’ space in query formulation. In addition, the findings highlight an ongoing need for transparency and reproducibility in professional search and raise further questions about how these properties may best be supported.

A suggested data structure for transparent and repeatable reporting of bibliographic searching

Academic searching is integral to research activities: (1) searching to retrieve specific information, (2) to expand our knowledge iteratively, (3) and to collate a representative and unbiased selection of the literature. Rigorous searching methods are vital for reliable, repeatable and unbiased searches needed for these second and third forms of searches (exploratory and systematic searching, respectively) that form a core part of evidence syntheses. Despite the broad awareness of the importance of transparency in reporting search activities in evidence syntheses, the importance of searching has been highlighted only recently and has been the explicit focus of reporting guidance (PRISMA-S). Ensuring bibliographic searches are reported in a way that is transparent enough to allow for full repeatability or evaluation is challenging for a number of reasons. Here, we detail these reasons and provide for the first time a standardised data structure for transparent and comprehensive reporting of search histories. This data structure was produced by a group of international experts in informatics and library sciences. We explain how the data structure was produced and describe its components in detail. We also demonstrate its practical applicability in tools designed to support literature review authors and explain how it can help to improve interoperability across tools used to manage literature reviews. We call on the research community and developers of reference and review management tools to embrace the data structure to facilitate adequate reporting of academic searching in an effort to raise the standard of evidence syntheses globally.

The use of subject headings varied in Embase and MEDLINE: An analysis of indexing across six subject areas

Many bibliographic databases describe the content of a publication using a thesaurus. The vocabularies vary and the extent to which the databases apply them may also differ significantly. The aim of this study is to empirically explore the number of subject headings assigned to publications in two databases over time and to determine if publication characteristics are associated with the number of subject headings. Articles and reviews in MEDLINE and Embase from 1990 to 2019 assigned with one of the subject headings from six subject areas are included in this study. Each of the retrieved publications in Embase is matched with a similar publication in MEDLINE. Furthermore, multivariable linear regressions are used to explore the association of the number of subject headings in MEDLINE and Embase with six prespecified publication characteristics. The average number of assigned subject headings in MEDLINE is stable or even slightly decreasing over time. In Embase, the average number of assigned subject headings was stable until about 2000 where the average number increased dramatically during the next 3 years. Furthermore, linear regressions show that the average number of subject headings in MEDLINE and Embase is higher for publications in English, publications with longer abstract, recent publications and if it belongs to specific subject areas. However, reviews are assigned with more subject headings in Embase and fewer in MEDLINE. The implications of the results are discussed.

NHS librarians collaborate to develop a search bank peer reviewing and sharing COVID-19 searches - an evaluation

BACKGROUND

Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Education England (HEE) mobilised a group of expert searchers from NHS libraries in England to develop a platform for librarians to share peer reviewed search strategies and results on the Knowledge for Healthcare website.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To document the origins of the COVID-19 search bank, (2) evaluate attitudes of NHS librarians in England towards the search bank and (3) identify lessons learned and consider whether the initiative might be developed further.

METHODS

Structured interviews with the peer reviewers (n = 10) were conducted, and a questionnaire survey of the NHS library community using the search bank was undertaken.

RESULTS

The interviews confirmed the value of collaboration. Expert searchers worked in pairs to peer review submitted search strategies. The survey (85 responses) indicated that a majority had used the search bank, and approved of the project, with some differences of opinion on functionality and future developments.

DISCUSSION

Collaborative working for the search bank probably saved time for individual NHS librarians. The quality of the searches submitted was variable as were librarians' approaches to presentation and development of search strategies. Peer review benefits from a buddy approach among expert searchers and agreement about feedback provided to contributors.

CONCLUSION

Search strategies are the most useful element of a search bank. Peer review can be challenging and would benefit from a formal structure, but it is professionally rewarding.

Avoiding searching for outcomes called for additional search strategies: A study of Cochrane review searches

OBJECTIVE

A search strategy for a systematic review that use the PICO-model as framework, should include the population, the intervention(s), and the type(s) of study design. According to existing guidelines outcome should generally be excluded from the search strategy unless the search is multistranded. However, a recent study found that approximately 10% (51) of recent Cochrane reviews on interventions included outcomes in their literature search strategies. This study aims to analyze the alternatives to including outcome in a search strategy, by analyzing these recent Cochrane reviews.

STUDY DESIGN

This study analyses the 51 Cochrane reviews that included outcomes in their literature search strategies and analyzes the results of alternative search strategies that follow current recommendations.

RESULTS

Despite a small study sample of 51 reviews, the results show that many of the reviews excluded some of the recommended elements due to very broadly defined elements (e.g., all interventions or all people). Furthermore, excluding outcome from the search strategy is followed by an enormous increase in the number of retrieved records making it unmanageable to screen, if using a single stranded search strategy.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for search strategies in difficult cases are called for.

An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses the quality and completeness of systematic reviews (SRs) included by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

METHODS

We evaluated SRs according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews).

RESULTS

Seven NCCN CPGs were included with 109 SRs. The mean PRISMA percent completeness of included SRs was 71 % (range 0.1-1.0). The mean AMSTAR-2 percent completeness was 56 % (range 0.05-0.99). Of the 70 SRs assessed via AMSTAR-2, 42 (60 %) received a "critically low" rating, 11 (15.7 %) received "low" ratings, and 17 (24.3 %) received "moderate". None of the SRs received a "high" rating.

CONCLUSION

Lack of adherence to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA reporting standards among the SRs included is prevalent. We suggest improved reporting of SR inclusion criteria and evaluation to bolster the reporting quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations.

How can vegetation protect us from air pollution? A critical review on green spaces' mitigation abilities for air-borne particles from a public health perspective - with implications for urban planning

Air pollution causes the largest death toll among environmental risks globally, but interventions to purify ambient air remain inadequate. Vegetation and green spaces have shown reductive effects on air-borne pollutants concentrations, especially of particulate matter (PM). Guidance on green space utilisation for air quality control remains scarce, however, as does its application in practise. To strengthen the foundation for research and interventions, we undertook a critical review of the state of science from a public health perspective. We used inter-disciplinary search strategies for published reviews on green spaces and air pollution in key scientific databases. Using the PRISMA checklist, we systematically identified reviews with quantitative analyses. For each of the presented PM mitigation mechanisms, we conducted additional searches focused on the most recent articles published between 2016 and early 2021. The included reviews differentiate three mitigation mechanisms of green spaces for PM: deposition, dispersion and modification. The most studied mechanism is deposition, particularly measures of mass and settling velocity of PM on plant leaves. We consolidate how green space setups differ by scale and context in their potentials to reduce peak exposures, stationary (point) or mobile (line) pollution sources, and the potentially most harmful PM components. The assessed findings suggest diverse optimisation options for green space interventions, particularly concerning plant selection, spatial setup, ventilation and maintenance - all alongside the consideration of supplementary vegetation effects like on temperature or water. Green spaces' reductive effects on air-borne PM concentrations are considerable, multi-mechanistic and varied by scale, context and vegetation characteristics. Such effect-modifying factors must be considered when rethinking public space design, as accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Weak linkages amid involved disciplines motivate the development of a research framework to strengthen health-oriented guidance. We conclude on an urgent need for an integrated and risk-based approach to PM mitigation through green space interventions.

Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers.

Methods

This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment.

Discussion

The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers.

Trial registration

Open Science Framework. Registered on June 17, 2021, at 10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2.

The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether librarian or information specialist authorship is associated with better reproducibility of the search, at least three databases searched, and better reporting quality in dental systematic reviews (SRs).

METHODS

SRs from the top ten dental research journals (as determined by Journal Citation Reports and Scimago) were reviewed for search quality and reproducibility by independent reviewers using two Qualtrics survey instruments. Data was reviewed for all SRs based on reproducibility and librarian participation and further reviewed for search quality of reproducible searches.

RESULTS

Librarians were co-authors in only 2.5% of the 913 included SRs and librarians were mentioned or acknowledged in only 9% of included SRs. Librarian coauthors were associated with more reproducible searches, higher search quality, and at least three databases searched. Although the results indicate librarians are associated with improved SR quality, due to the small number of SRs that included a librarian, results were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Despite guidance from organizations that produce SR guidelines recommending the inclusion of a librarian or information specialist on the review team, and despite evidence showing that librarians improve the reproducibility of searches and the reporting of methodology in SRs, librarians are not being included in SRs in the field of dental medicine. The authors of this review recommend the inclusion of a librarian on SR teams in dental medicine and other fields.

Educational interventions to improve literature searching skills in the health sciences: a scoping review

Objective:

The authors reviewed educational interventions for improving literature searching skills in the health sciences.

Methods:

We performed a scoping review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies published in English and German, irrespective of publication year. Targeted outcomes were objectively measurable literature searching skills (e.g., quality of search strategy, study retrieval, precision). The search methods consisted of searching databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science), tracking citations, free web searching, and contacting experts. Two reviewers performed screening and data extraction. To evaluate the completeness of reporting, the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) was applied.

Results:

We included 6 controlled trials and 8 pre-post trials from the 8,484 references that we screened. Study participants were students in various health professions and physicians. The educational formats of the interventions varied. Outcomes clustered into 2 categories: (1) developing search strategies (e.g., identifying search concepts, selecting databases, applying Boolean operators) and (2) database searching skills (e.g., searching PubMed, MEDLINE, or CINAHL). In addition to baseline and post-intervention measurement, 5 studies reported follow-up. Almost all studies adequately described their intervention procedures and delivery but did not provide access to the educational material. The expertise of the intervention facilitators was described in only 3 studies.

Conclusions:

The results showed a wide range of study populations, interventions, and outcomes. Studies often lacked information about educational material and facilitators' expertise. Further research should focus on intervention effectiveness using controlled study designs and long-term follow-up. To ensure transparency, replication, and comparability, studies should rigorously describe their intervention.

Quality of Literature Searches Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

There is mounting evidence that the search strategies upon which systematic reviews (SRs) are based frequently contain errors are incompletely reported or insensitive.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the quality of search strategies in the 10 leading specialty neurosurgical journals and identify factors associated with superior searches.

METHODS

This research-on-research study systematically surveyed SRs published in the 10 leading neurosurgical journals between 01/10/2017 and 31/10/2019. All SRs were eligible for assessment using a predefined coding manual that was adapted from the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR), and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The PubMed interface was used to search the MEDLINE database, which was supplemented by individual journal searches. Descriptive statistics were utilized to identify factors associated with improved search strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 633 articles were included and contained a median of 19.00 (2.00-1654.00) studies. Less than half (45.97%) of included search strategies were considered to be reproducible. Aggregated reporting score was positively associated with in-text reference to reporting guideline adherence (τb = 0.156, P < .01). The number of articles retrieved by a search (τb = 0.11, P < .01) was also associated with the reporting of a reproducible search strategy.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the search strategies used in neurosurgical SRs require improvement. In addition to increasing awareness of reporting standards, we propose that this be achieved by the incorporation of PRISMA and other guidelines into article submission and peer-review processes. This may lead to the conduct of more informative SRs, which may result in improved clinician decision-making and patient outcomes.

Redundancy of Terms in Search Strategies. Comment on "Searching PubMed to Retrieve Publications on the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparative Analysis of Search Strings"

Collapse

Peer review of searches for studies for health technology assessments, systematic reviews, and other evidence syntheses

INTRODUCTION

Peer review of searches is a process whereby both the search strategies and the search process description are reviewed, ideally using an evidence-based checklist.

RATIONALE

As the search strategy underpins any well-conducted evidence synthesis, its quality could affect the final result. Evidence shows, however, that search strategies are prone to error.

FINDINGS

There is increasing awareness and use of the PRESS Evidence-Based Checklist and peer review of search strategies, at the outset of evidence syntheses, prior to the searches being run, and this is now recommended by a number of evidence synthesis organizations.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Searches for evidence syntheses should be peer reviewed by a suitably qualified and experienced librarian or information specialist after being designed, ideally, by another suitably qualified and experienced librarian or information specialist. Peer review of searches should take place at two important stages in the evidence synthesis process; at the outset of the project prior to the searches being run and at the prepublication stage. There is little empirical evidence, however, to support the effectiveness of peer review of searches. Further research is required to assess this. Those wishing to stay up to date with the latest developments in information retrieval, including peer review of searches, should consult the SuRe Info resource (http://www.sure-info.org), which seeks to help information specialists and others by providing easy access to the findings from current information retrieval methods research and thus support more research-based information retrieval practice.

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc 2021;109:174-200. [PMID: 34285662 PMCID: PMC8270366 DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2021.962]

BACKGROUND

Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.

METHODS

The checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.

RESULTS

The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.

CONCLUSIONS

The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.

Adoption of peer review of literature search strategies in knowledge synthesis from 2009 to 2018: An overview

BACKGROUND

Knowledge synthesis (KS) reviews rely on good quality literature searches to capture a complete set of relevant studies, and peer review of the search strategy is one quality control mechanism that contributes to better quality reviews. Guidelines for peer review of electronic search strategies (PRESS) have been available since 2008.

OBJECTIVES

This overview provides a snapshot of KS indexed in Scopus, published between 2009 and 2018, that reported peer review of the literature search strategy.

METHODS

Articles were identified through citation chasing for PRESS guidance documents and supplementary keyword searches. The characteristics of individual articles and the journals that published them were documented, and descriptive statistics were compiled.

RESULTS

415 articles from 169 journals met inclusion criteria. Approximately half were published in 14 journal titles. Most reviews reported the involvement of an information professional, but PRESS reviewers were rarely acknowledged. An overwhelming majority of review teams were based in Canada.

DISCUSSION

Reported use of PRESS was low during the period examined, but under-reporting may be a factor. Investigation of the barriers and facilitators of PRESS adoption is needed.

CONCLUSION

Despite its value, adoption of PRESS appears low. Advocacy for, and education about, PRESS may be required.

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

BACKGROUND

Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.

METHODS

The checklist was developed using a 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.

RESULTS

The final checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.

CONCLUSIONS

The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and therefore reproducible.

Use of a search summary table to improve systematic review search methods, results, and efficiency

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are comprehensive, robust, inclusive, transparent, and reproducible when bringing together the evidence to answer a research question. Various guidelines provide recommendations on the expertise required to conduct a systematic review, where and how to search for literature, and what should be reported in the published review. However, the finer details of the search results are not typically reported to allow the search methods or search efficiency to be evaluated.

CASE PRESENTATION

This case study presents a search summary table, containing the details of which databases were searched, which supplementary search methods were used, and where the included articles were found. It was developed and published alongside a recent systematic review. This simple format can be used in future systematic reviews to improve search results reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Publishing a search summary table in all systematic reviews would add to the growing evidence base about information retrieval, which would help in determining which databases to search for which type of review (in terms of either topic or scope), what supplementary search methods are most effective, what type of literature is being included, and where it is found. It would also provide evidence for future searching and search methods research.

Using citation tracking for systematic literature searching - study protocol for a scoping review of methodological studies and an expert survey

Background: Up-to-date guidance on comprehensive study identification for systematic reviews is crucial. According to current recommendations, systematic searching should combine electronic database searching with supplementary search methods. One such supplementary search method is citation tracking. It aims at collecting directly and/or indirectly cited and citing references from "seed references". Tailored and evidence-guided recommendations concerning the use of citation tracking are strongly needed. Objective: We intend to develop recommendations for the use of citation tracking in health-related systematic literature searching. Our study will be guided by the following research questions: What are the benefits of citation tracking for health-related systematic literature searching? Which perspectives and experiences do experts in the field of literature retrieval methods have with regard to citation tracking in health-related systematic literature searching? Methods: Our study will have two parts: a scoping review and an expert survey. The scoping review aims at identifying methodological studies on benefits or problems of citation tracking in health-related systematic literature searching with no restrictions on study design, language, and publication date. We will perform database searching in MEDLINE, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science Core Collection, two information science databases, and free web searching. Two reviewers will independently assess full texts of selected abstracts. We will conduct direct backward and forward citation tracking on included articles. The results of the scoping review will inform our expert survey through which we aim to learn about experts΄ perspectives and experiences. We will narratively synthesize the results and derive recommendations for performing health-related systematic reviews.

Using citation tracking for systematic literature searching - study protocol for a scoping review of methodological studies and a Delphi study

Background: Up-to-date guidance on comprehensive study identification for systematic reviews is crucial. According to current recommendations, systematic searching should combine electronic database searching with supplementary search methods. One such supplementary search method is citation tracking. It aims at collecting directly and/or indirectly cited and citing references from "seed references". Tailored and evidence-guided recommendations concerning the use of citation tracking are strongly needed. Objective: We intend to develop recommendations for the use of citation tracking in systematic literature searching for health-related topics. Our study will be guided by the following research questions: What is the benefit of citation tracking for systematic literature searching for health-related topics? Which methods, citation indexes, and other tools are used for citation tracking? What terminology is used for citation tracking methods? Methods: Our study will have two parts: a scoping review and a Delphi study. The scoping review aims at identifying methodological studies on the benefit and use of citation tracking in systematic literature searching for health-related topics with no restrictions on study design, language, and publication date. We will perform database searching in MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, two information science databases, web searching, and contact experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection. We will conduct direct backward and forward citation tracking on included articles. Data from included studies will be extracted using a prespecified extraction sheet and presented in both tabular and narrative form. The results of the scoping review will inform the subsequent Delphi study through which we aim to derive consensus recommendations for the future practice and research of citation tracking.

Using citation tracking for systematic literature searching - study protocol for a scoping review of methodological studies and a Delphi study

Background: Up-to-date guidance on comprehensive study identification for systematic reviews is crucial. According to current recommendations, systematic searching should combine electronic database searching with supplementary search methods. One such supplementary search method is citation tracking. It aims at collecting directly and/or indirectly cited and citing references from "seed references". Tailored and evidence-guided recommendations concerning the use of citation tracking are strongly needed. Objective: We intend to develop recommendations for the use of citation tracking in systematic literature searching for health-related topics. Our study will be guided by the following research questions: What is the benefit of citation tracking for systematic literature searching for health-related topics? Which methods, citation indexes, and other tools are used for citation tracking? What terminology is used for citation tracking methods? Methods: Our study will have two parts: a scoping review and a Delphi study. The scoping review aims at identifying methodological studies on the benefit and use of citation tracking in systematic literature searching for health-related topics with no restrictions on study design, language, and publication date. We will perform database searching in MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, two information science databases, web searching, and contact experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection. We will conduct direct backward and forward citation tracking on included articles. Data from included studies will be extracted using a prespecified extraction sheet and presented in both tabular and narrative form. The results of the scoping review will inform the subsequent Delphi study through which we aim to derive consensus recommendations for the future practice and research of citation tracking.

Rapid reviews: A critical perspective

BACKGROUND

The high scientific uncertainty of many far-reaching and serious political decisions during the "coronavirus crisis" underpins the enormous importance of having evidence syntheses that are quickly available and at the same time reliable. As these requirements can only be insufficiently fulfilled by systematic reviews due to the high amount of time required, abbreviated evidence syntheses in the form of rapid reviews are becoming increasingly popular.

PURPOSE

This commentary aims to enhance methodological and methodical discussions and research about abbreviated evidence syntheses.

METHODS

A selective literature search and evaluation focussing on research dealing with rapid reviews.

RESULTS

In rapid reviews, a wide variety of methods can be used to speed up the process of literature search and evaluation, while at the same time maintaining the principles of methodological quality and transparent reporting. But do rapid reviews currently keep what they promise? We discuss the increasing trend towards rapid reviews, giving the currently available evidence on the topic some critical reflection. Following this discussion, we will finally derive demands that go beyond the topic of rapid reviews alone.

Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the agreement of treatment effect estimates from meta-analyses based on abbreviated or comprehensive literature searches.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a meta-epidemiological study. We abbreviated 47 comprehensive Cochrane review searches and searched MEDLINE/Embase/CENTRAL alone, in combination, with/without checking references (658 new searches). We compared one meta-analysis from each review with recalculated ones based on abbreviated searches.

RESULTS

The 47 original meta-analyses included 444 trials (median 6 per review [interquartile range (IQR) 3-11]) with 360045 participants (median 1,371 per review [IQR 685-8,041]). Depending on the search approach, abbreviated searches led to identical effect estimates in 34-79% of meta-analyses, to different effect estimates with the same direction and level of statistical significance in 15-51%, and to opposite effects (or effects could not be estimated anymore) in 6-13%. The deviation of effect sizes was zero in 50% of the meta-analyses and in 75% not larger than 1.07-fold. Effect estimates of abbreviated searches were not consistently smaller or larger (median ratio of odds ratio 1 [IQR 1-1.01]) but more imprecise (1.02-1.06-fold larger standard errors).

CONCLUSION

Abbreviated literature searches often led to identical or very similar effect estimates as comprehensive searches with slightly increased confidence intervals. Relevant deviations may occur.

A Microsoft Excel Approach to Reduce Errors and Increase Efficiency in Systematic Searching

Developing a search strategy for a systematic review is a time-consuming process in which small errors around the formatting and compilation of terms can have large consequences. Microsoft Excel was identified as a potentially useful software to streamline the process and reduce manual errors. Ultimately a spreadsheet was created that largely automates the process of creating a single-line search string with correctly formatted terms, Boolean operators and parentheses.

Assessment of Search Strategies in Literature-Review-Based Candidate Theses Within a Nursing Program

BACKGROUND

The majority of candidate theses in baccalaureate nursing programs in Sweden are written as literature studies. Being able to carry out a systematic and structured literature search is an essential part of thesis-related work.

AIM

The aim of the current study was to investigate changes in nursing students' search strategies in candidate theses.

METHODS

A retrospective, quantitative study design was obtained. Librarians (n = 2) and teachers (n = 4) randomly examined selected candidate theses (every third thesis, n = 89) from the years 2012, 2014, and 2016.

RESULTS

The result showed a significant improvement over the years (from 2012 and 2014 to 2016) regarding the use of a sufficient number of synonyms, matching search terms to the respective database, use of the Boolean operator OR, and the use of subject headings and free text searches. Use of the title/abstract search largely disappeared. There was a significant change in the types of searches being done. The searches have become more structured in later years as the use of block searches increased significantly; in other words, more systematic and relevant searches have been done in recent years.

CONCLUSION

The result of this study shows that the quality of the students' search strategies improved significantly during the studied years. It is recommended that search documents are used in both formative and summative assessments to evaluate students' search strategies. Educational development in the form of enhanced collaboration between librarians and teachers in nursing programs is recommended because it might help to develop student search strategies in literature-based candidate theses.

lilacs search strategy for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies

BACKGROUND

There are few publications on search strategies to identify diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies in lilacs.

OBJECTIVE

To translate and customise medline search strategies for use in lilacs and assess their retrieval of studies in Cochrane DTA systematic reviews.

METHOD

We developed a six-step process to translate and customise medline search strategies for use in lilacs (iAHx interface). We identified medline search strategies of published Cochrane DTA reviews, translated/customised them for use in lilacs, ran searches in lilacs and compared the retrieval results of our translated search strategy versus the one used in the published reviews.

RESULTS

Our lilacs search strategies translated/customised from the medline strategies retrieved studies in 70 Cochrane DTA reviews. Only 29 of these reviews stated that they had searched the lilacs database and 21 published their lilacs search strategies. Few had used the lilacs database search tools, none exploded the subject headings, and 86% used only English terms.

CONCLUSION

Translating and tailoring a medline search strategy for the lilacs database resulted in the retrieval of DTA studies that would have been missed otherwise.

Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval

Objectives

Errors in search strategies negatively affect the quality and validity of systematic reviews. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate searches performed in MEDLINE/PubMed to identify errors and determine their effects on information retrieval.

Methods

A PubMed search was conducted using the systematic review filter to identify articles that were published in January of 2018. Systematic reviews or meta-analyses were selected from a systematic search for literature containing reproducible and explicit search strategies in MEDLINE/PubMed. Data were extracted from these studies related to ten types of errors and to the terms and phrases search modes.

Results

The study included 137 systematic reviews in which the number of search strategies containing some type of error was very high (92.7%). Errors that affected recall were the most frequent (78.1%), and the most common search errors involved missing terms in both natural language and controlled language and those related to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search terms and the non-retrieval of their more specific terms.

Conclusions

To improve the quality of searches and avoid errors, it is essential to plan the search strategy carefully, which includes consulting the MeSH database to identify the concepts and choose all appropriate terms, both descriptors and synonyms, and combining search techniques in the free-text and controlled-language fields, truncating the terms appropriately to retrieve all their variants.

Reproducibility and replicability of systematic reviews

Irreproducibility of research causes a major concern in academia. This concern affects all study designs regardless of scientific fields. Without testing the reproducibility and replicability it is almost impossible to repeat the research and to gain the same or similar results. In addition, irreproducibility limits the translation of research findings into practice where the same results are expected. To find the solutions, the Interacademy Partnership for Health gathered academics from established networks of science, medicine and engineering around a table to introduce seven strategies that can enhance the reproducibility: pre-registration, open methods, open data, collaboration, automation, reporting guidelines, and post-publication reviews. The current editorial discusses the generalisability and practicality of these strategies to systematic reviews and claims that systematic reviews have even a greater potential than other research designs to lead the movement toward the reproducibility of research. Moreover, I discuss the potential of reproducibility, on the other hand, to upgrade the systematic review from review to research. Furthermore, there are references to the successful and ongoing practices from collaborative efforts around the world to encourage the systematic reviewers, the journal editors and publishers, the organizations linked to evidence synthesis, and the funders and policy makers to facilitate this movement and to gain the public trust in research.

The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of the peer review of literature search strategies prepared in support of rapid reviews.

METHODS

A sample of 200 CADTH rapid reviews was selected. For each rapid review meeting the inclusion criteria, the pre-peer-reviewed and corresponding post-peer-reviewed search strategies were run, and the search results were compared. Bibliographic records retrieved solely by the post-peer-reviewed search strategy and included in the rapid review report were identified as representing "included studies." The publication type of each included study was determined, and the attributes of the corresponding record were analyzed to determine the reason for its retrieval by the post-peer-reviewed search.

RESULTS

The peer review of search strategies resulted in the retrieval of one or more additional records for 75% of the searches investigated, but only a small proportion of these records (4%) represented included studies. The main publication types of the included studies were nonrandomized studies (60%) and narrative reviews (20%). The principal changes to search strategies that resulted in the retrieval of additional included studies were the inclusion of more keywords or subject headings or a change in the way concepts were combined.

CONCLUSIONS

The peer review of literature search strategies aids in the retrieval of relevant records particularly those representing nonrandomized studies. The scrutiny of keywords, subject headings, and the relation between search concepts are key components of the peer review process.

Methodology of a systematic review

CONTEXT

The objective of evidence-based medicine is to employ the best scientific information available to apply to clinical practice. Understanding and interpreting the scientific evidence involves understanding the available levels of evidence, where systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials are at the top of the levels-of-evidence pyramid.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

The review process should be well developed and planned to reduce biases and eliminate irrelevant and low-quality studies. The steps for implementing a systematic review include (i) correctly formulating the clinical question to answer (PICO), (ii) developing a protocol (inclusion and exclusion criteria), (iii) performing a detailed and broad literature search and (iv) screening the abstracts of the studies identified in the search and subsequently of the selected complete texts (PRISMA).

SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE

Once the studies have been selected, we need to (v) extract the necessary data into a form designed in the protocol to summarise the included studies, (vi) assess the biases of each study, identifying the quality of the available evidence, and (vii) develop tables and text that synthesise the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review involves a critical and reproducible summary of the results of the available publications on a particular topic or clinical question. To improve scientific writing, the methodology is shown in a structured manner to implement a systematic review.

Identification of problems in search strategies in Cochrane Reviews

OBJECTIVE

Search strategies are essential for the adequate retrieval of studies in a systematic review (SR). Our objective was to identify problems in the design and reporting of search strategies in a sample of new Cochrane SRs first published in The Cochrane Library in 2015.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We took a random sample of 70 new Cochrane SRs of interventions published in 2015. We evaluated their design and reporting of search strategies using the recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews, and the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies evidence-based guideline.

RESULTS

Most reviews complied with the reporting standards in the Cochrane Handbook and the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews; however, 8 SRs did not search trials registers, 3 SRs included language restrictions, and there was inconsistent reporting of contact with individuals and searches of the gray literature. We found problems in the design of the search strategies in 73% of reviews (95% CI, 60-84%) and 53% of these contained problems (95% CI, 38-69%) that could limit both the sensitivity and precision of the search strategies.

CONCLUSION

We found limitations in the design and reporting of search strategies. We consider that a greater adherence to the guidelines could improve their quality.

Dynamic MRI to quantify musculoskeletal motion: A systematic review of concurrent validity and reliability, and perspectives for evaluation of musculoskeletal disorders

Purpose

To report evidence for the concurrent validity and reliability of dynamic MRI techniques to evaluate in vivo joint and muscle mechanics, and to propose recommendations for their use in the assessment of normal and impaired musculoskeletal function.

Materials and methods

The search was conducted on articles published in Web of science, PubMed, Scopus, Academic search Premier, and Cochrane Library between 1990 and August 2017. Studies that reported the concurrent validity and/or reliability of dynamic MRI techniques for in vivo evaluation of joint or muscle mechanics were included after assessment by two independent reviewers. Selected articles were assessed using an adapted quality assessment tool and a data extraction process. Results for concurrent validity and reliability were categorized as poor, moderate, or excellent.

Results

Twenty articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria with a mean quality assessment score of 66% (±10.4%). Concurrent validity and/or reliability of eight dynamic MRI techniques were reported, with the knee being the most evaluated joint (seven studies). Moderate to excellent concurrent validity and reliability were reported for seven out of eight dynamic MRI techniques. Cine phase contrast and real-time MRI appeared to be the most valid and reliable techniques to evaluate joint motion, and spin tag for muscle motion.

Conclusion

Dynamic MRI techniques are promising for the in vivo evaluation of musculoskeletal mechanics; however results should be evaluated with caution since validity and reliability have not been determined for all joints and muscles, nor for many pathological conditions.

Expert Search Strategies: The Information Retrieval Practices of Healthcare Information Professionals

BACKGROUND

Healthcare information professionals play a key role in closing the knowledge gap between medical research and clinical practice. Their work involves meticulous searching of literature databases using complex search strategies that can consist of hundreds of keywords, operators, and ontology terms. This process is prone to error and can lead to inefficiency and bias if performed incorrectly.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the search behavior of healthcare information professionals, uncovering their needs, goals, and requirements for information retrieval systems.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to healthcare information professionals via professional association email discussion lists. It investigated the search tasks they undertake, their techniques for search strategy formulation, their approaches to evaluating search results, and their preferred functionality for searching library-style databases. The popular literature search system PubMed was then evaluated to determine the extent to which their needs were met.

RESULTS

The 107 respondents indicated that their information retrieval process relied on the use of complex, repeatable, and transparent search strategies. On average it took 60 minutes to formulate a search strategy, with a search task taking 4 hours and consisting of 15 strategy lines. Respondents reviewed a median of 175 results per search task, far more than they would ideally like (100). The most desired features of a search system were merging search queries and combining search results.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare information professionals routinely address some of the most challenging information retrieval problems of any profession. However, their needs are not fully supported by current literature search systems and there is demand for improved functionality, in particular regarding the development and management of search strategies.

Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines

Objective

Complete, accurate reporting of systematic reviews facilitates assessment of how well reviews have been conducted. The primary objective of this study was to examine compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for literature search reporting and to examine the completeness, bias, and reproducibility of the searches in these reviews from what was reported. The second objective was to examine reporting of the credentials and contributions of those involved in the search process.

Methods

A sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in veterinary journals between 2011 and 2015 was obtained by searching PubMed. Reporting in the full text of each review was checked against certain PRISMA checklist items.

Results

Over one-third of reviews (37%) did not search the CAB Abstracts database, and 9% of reviews searched only 1 database. Over two-thirds of reviews (65%) did not report any search for grey literature or stated that they excluded grey literature. The majority of reviews (95%) did not report a reproducible search strategy.

Conclusions

Most reviews had significant deficiencies in reporting the search process that raise questions about how these searches were conducted and ultimately cast serious doubts on the validity and reliability of reviews based on a potentially biased and incomplete body of literature. These deficiencies also highlight the need for veterinary journal editors and publishers to be more rigorous in requiring adherence to PRISMA guidelines and to encourage veterinary researchers to include librarians or information specialists on systematic review teams to improve the quality and reporting of searches.

[How do authors of systematic reviews restrict their literature searches when only studies from Germany should be included?]

INTRODUCTION

The use of search filters (e. g. for study types) facilitates the process of literature searching. Regional limits might be helpful depending on the research question. Regional search filters are already available for some regions, but not for Germany. Our aim is to give an overview of applied search strategies in systematic reviews (SRs) focusing on Germany.

METHODS

We searched Medline (via Pubmed) applying a focused search strategy to identify SRs focusing on Germany in January 2016. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. The search strategies with a focus on Germany were analyzed in terms of reasonableness and completeness relying on the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) criteria. A narrative evidence synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 36 SRs (13 written in English) were included. 78% were published in 2012 or later. The majority (89%) of SRs utilized at least two different sources for their search with databases and checking references being the most common. 17 SRs did not use any truncations, ten SRs did not restrict their search to Germany, six SRs reported to have searched for German OR Germany. Only ten articles searched for the term Germany (occasionally jointly with the term Deutschland) without any use of an adjective such as German.

DISCUSSION

There is a high interest in regionally focused SRs. The identified search strategies revealed a need for improvement. It would be helpful to develop a regional search filter for Germany that is able to identify studies performed in Germany.

Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

A high-quality search strategy is considered an essential component of systematic reviews but many do not contain reproducible search strategies. It is unclear if low reproducibility spans medical disciplines, is affected by librarian/search specialist involvement or has improved with increased awareness of reporting guidelines.

Objectives

To examine the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews published in Pediatrics, Surgery or Cardiology journals in 2012 and determine rates and predictors of including a reproducible search strategy.

Methods

We identified all systematic reviews published in 2012 in the ten highest impact factor journals in Pediatrics, Surgery and Cardiology. Each search strategy was coded to indicate what elements were reported and whether the overall search was reproducible. Reporting and reproducibility rates were compared across disciplines and we measured the influence of librarian/search specialist involvement, discipline or endorsement of a reporting guideline on search reproducibility.

Results

272 articles from 25 journals were included. Reporting of search elements ranged widely from 91% of articles naming search terms to 33% providing a full search strategy and 22% indicating the date the search was executed. Only 22% of articles provided at least one reproducible search strategy and 13% provided a reproducible strategy for all databases searched in the article. Librarians or search specialists were reported as involved in 17% of articles. There were strong disciplinary differences on the reporting of search elements. In the multivariable analysis, only discipline (Pediatrics) was a significant predictor of the inclusion of a reproducible search strategy.

Conclusions

Despite recommendations to report full, reproducible search strategies, many articles still do not. In addition, authors often report a single strategy as covering all databases searched, further decreasing reproducibility. Further research is needed to determine how disciplinary culture may encourage reproducibility and the role that journal editors and peer reviewers could play.

PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement

OBJECTIVE

To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

An SR, Web-based survey of experts, and consensus development forum were undertaken to identify checklists that evaluated or validated electronic literature search strategies and to determine which of their elements related to search quality or errors.

RESULTS

Systematic review: No new search elements were identified for addition to the existing (2008-2010) PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist, and there was no evidence refuting any of its elements. Results suggested that structured PRESS could identify search errors and improve the selection of search terms. Web-based survey of experts: Most respondents felt that peer review should be undertaken after the MEDLINE search had been prepared but before it had been translated to other databases. Consensus development forum: Of the seven original PRESS elements, six were retained: translation of the research question; Boolean and proximity operators; subject headings; text word search; spelling, syntax and line numbers; and limits and filters. The seventh (skilled translation of the search strategy to additional databases) was removed, as there was consensus that this should be left to the discretion of searchers. An updated PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement was developed, which includes the following four documents: PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist, PRESS 2015 Recommendations for Librarian Practice, PRESS 2015 Implementation Strategies, and PRESS 2015 Guideline Assessment Form.

CONCLUSION

The PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement should help to guide and improve the peer review of electronic literature search strategies.

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

Background

Previous research looking at published systematic reviews has shown that their search strategies are often suboptimal and that librarian involvement, though recommended, is low. Confidence in the results, however, is limited due to poor reporting of search strategies the published articles.

Objectives

To more accurately measure the use of recommended search methods in systematic reviews, the levels of librarian involvement, and whether librarian involvement predicts the use of recommended methods.

Methods

A survey was sent to all authors of English-language systematic reviews indexed in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from January 2012 through January 2014. The survey asked about their use of search methods recommended by the Institute of Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and if and how a librarian was involved in the systematic review. Rates of use of recommended methods and librarian involvement were summarized. The impact of librarian involvement on use of recommended methods was examined using a multivariate logistic regression.

Results

1560 authors completed the survey. Use of recommended search methods ranged widely from 98% for use of keywords to 9% for registration in PROSPERO and were generally higher than in previous studies. 51% of studies involved a librarian, but only 64% acknowledge their assistance. Librarian involvement was significantly associated with the use of 65% of recommended search methods after controlling for other potential predictors. Odds ratios ranged from 1.36 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.75) for including multiple languages to 3.07 (95% CI 2.06 to 4.58) for using controlled vocabulary.

Conclusions

Use of recommended search strategies is higher than previously reported, but many methods are still under-utilized. Librarian involvement predicts the use of most methods, but their involvement is under-reported within the published article.

Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether librarian and information specialist authorship was associated with better reported systematic review (SR) search quality.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

SRs from high-impact general internal medicine journals were reviewed for search quality characteristics and reporting quality by independent reviewers using three instruments, including a checklist of Institute of Medicine Recommended Standards for the Search Process and a scored modification of the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies instrument.

RESULTS

The level of librarian and information specialist participation was significantly associated with search reproducibility from reported search strategies (Χ(2) = 23.5; P < 0.0001). Librarian co-authored SRs had significantly higher odds of meeting 8 of 13 analyzed search standards than those with no librarian participation and six more than those with mentioned librarian participation. One-way ANOVA showed that differences in total search quality scores between all three groups were statistically significant (F2,267 = 10.1233; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Problems remain with SR search quality and reporting. SRs with librarian or information specialist co-authors are correlated with significantly higher quality reported search strategies. To minimize bias in SRs, authors and editors could encourage librarian engagement in SRs including authorship as a potential way to help improve documentation of the search strategy.

Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this scoping review was to review the literature on healthcare provider provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women in appropriate clinical situations in various healthcare settings.

METHODS

A scoping review framework was used to structure the process. The following databases were searched: CINAHL (EBSCO), EBM Reviews (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Medline (OvidSP), and Web of Science (ISI). In addition, hand searching of article references was conducted. The search yielded 301 articles. Thirty-five articles remained for review after screening. Two team members reviewed each article using a detailed data collection sheet. A third reviewer was utilized if discrepancies occurred amongst reviewers.

RESULTS

The review process yielded 18 included articles. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United Kingdom. Of the 18 studies, 15 were retrospective studies. The articles were largely conducted in one institution. The articles with a focus on routine antenatal provision of anti-D immunoglobulin found that it was given 80 to 90% of the time. Postpartum provision of anti-D immunoglobulin had significantly higher results of 95-100%. The review found that the delivery of anti-D immunoglobulin to RhD negative pregnant women during situations of potential sensitizing events was suboptimal.

CONCLUSIONS

The included articles examine the management of RhD negative pregnancies in various countries with existing national guidelines. The existing evidence indicates an opportunity for quality improvement in situations where potential sensitizing events are not at routine times in pregnancy, such as miscarriage or fetal demise early in pregnancy. Routine care for the prevention of RhD alloimmunization in pregnancy and postpartum appears to be fairly consistent. The paucity of recent literature in this area leads to a recommendation for further research.

Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Research indicates that the methods used to identify data for systematic reviews of adverse effects may need to differ from other systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To compare search methods in systematic reviews of adverse effects with other reviews.

METHODS

The search methodologies in 849 systematic reviews of adverse effects were compared with other reviews.

RESULTS

Poor reporting of search strategies is apparent in both systematic reviews of adverse effects and other types of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews of adverse effects are less likely to restrict their searches to MEDLINE or include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The use of other databases is largely dependent on the topic area and the year the review was conducted, with more databases searched in more recent reviews. Adverse effects search terms are used by 72% of reviews and despite recommendations only two reviews report using floating subheadings.

CONCLUSIONS

The poor reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews is universal, as is the dominance of searching MEDLINE. However, reviews of adverse effects are more likely to include a range of study designs (not just RCTs) and search beyond MEDLINE.

Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible?

Systematic reviews are an essential tool for researchers, prevention providers and policy makers who want to remain current with the evidence in the field. Systematic review must adhere to strict standards, as the results can provide a more objective appraisal of evidence for making scientific decisions than traditional narrative reviews. An integral component of a systematic review is the development and execution of a comprehensive systematic search to collect available and relevant information. A number of reporting guidelines have been developed to ensure quality publications of systematic reviews. These guidelines provide the essential elements to include in the review process and report in the final publication for complete transparency. We identified the common elements of reporting guidelines and examined the reporting quality of search methods in HIV behavioral intervention literature. Consistent with the findings from previous evaluations of reporting search methods of systematic reviews in other fields, our review shows a lack of full and transparent reporting within systematic reviews even though a plethora of guidelines exist. This review underscores the need for promoting the completeness of and adherence to transparent systematic search reporting within systematic reviews.