+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      "Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches.

      Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

      Review Literature as Topic, Qualitative Research, Meta-Analysis as Topic, statistics & numerical data, standards, Information Storage and Retrieval, Humans, Databases, Bibliographic, Abstracting and Indexing as Topic

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Systematic reviews of qualitative research studies extend understanding of health care beyond effectiveness to acceptability and user views. The paper surveys reports of qualitative systematic reviews and, by characterizing techniques used to identify articles for inclusion, proposes standards for reporting of literature searches. A search of MEDLINE was performed for qualitative systematic reviews published from 1988 to December 2004, supported by searches of CINAHL, Web of Knowledge (including the Science and Social Sciences Citation Index), and the Cochrane Methodology Register, and Internet searches using the Copernic Agent Professional meta-search agent. Studies were included if they used techniques of qualitative synthesis in reviewing research studies in health care. Narrative reviews were excluded. Authors, year of publication, sampling strategy, databases, keywords, and other approaches used were extracted. Sixty-four studies were identified, and forty-three met inclusion criteria for this review. A summary of searching methods was produced and used to construct the STARLITE mnemonic (sampling strategy, type of study, approaches, range of years, limits, inclusion and exclusions, terms used, electronic sources). Considerable variation exists in search methods for qualitative systematic reviews. While diversity in methods is appropriate during the development of review methodology, major concerns remain about the absence of an accepted standard and the consequent poor quality of reporting.

          Related collections

          Author and article information



          Comment on this article