6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Background

          Information specialists conducting searches for systematic reviews need to consider key questions around which and how many sources to search. This is particularly important for public health topics where evidence may be found in diverse sources.

          Objectives

          The objective of this review is to give an overview of recent studies on information retrieval guidance and methods that could be applied to public health evidence and used to guide future searches.

          Methods

          A literature search was performed in core databases and supplemented by browsing health information journals and citation searching. Results were sifted and reviewed.

          Results

          Seventy‐two papers were found and grouped into themes covering sources and search techniques. Public health topics were poorly covered in this literature.

          Discussion

          Many researchers follow the recommendations to search multiple databases. The review topic influences decisions about sources. Additional sources covering grey literature eliminate bias but are time‐consuming and difficult to search systematically. Public health searching is complex, often requiring searches in multidisciplinary sources and using additional methods.

          Conclusions

          Search planning is advisable to enable decisions about which and how many sources to search. This could improve with more work on modelling search scenarios, particularly in public health topics, to examine where publications were found and guide future research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references85

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study

          Background Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews. Methods Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. For each published systematic review, we extracted the references of the included studies. Using the prospectively recorded results and the studies included in the publications, we calculated recall, precision, and number needed to read for single databases and databases in combination. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall. Results A total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. Sixteen percent of the included references (291 articles) were only found in a single database; Embase produced the most unique references (n = 132). The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. Conclusions Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

            Rigorous evidence identification is essential for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (evidence syntheses) because the sample selection of relevant studies determines a review's outcome, validity, and explanatory power. Yet, the search systems allowing access to this evidence provide varying levels of precision, recall, and reproducibility and also demand different levels of effort. To date, it remains unclear which search systems are most appropriate for evidence synthesis and why. Advice on which search engines and bibliographic databases to choose for systematic searches is limited and lacking systematic, empirical performance assessments. This study investigates and compares the systematic search qualities of 28 widely used academic search systems, including Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science. A novel, query‐based method tests how well users are able to interact and retrieve records with each system. The study is the first to show the extent to which search systems can effectively and efficiently perform (Boolean) searches with regards to precision, recall, and reproducibility. We found substantial differences in the performance of search systems, meaning that their usability in systematic searches varies. Indeed, only half of the search systems analyzed and only a few Open Access databases can be recommended for evidence syntheses without adding substantial caveats. Particularly, our findings demonstrate why Google Scholar is inappropriate as principal search system. We call for database owners to recognize the requirements of evidence synthesis and for academic journals to reassess quality requirements for systematic reviews. Our findings aim to support researchers in conducting better searches for better evidence synthesis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada

              Background Grey literature is an important source of information for large-scale review syntheses. However, there are many characteristics of grey literature that make it difficult to search systematically. Further, there is no ‘gold standard’ for rigorous systematic grey literature search methods and few resources on how to conduct this type of search. This paper describes systematic review search methods that were developed and applied to complete a case study systematic review of grey literature that examined guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Methods A grey literature search plan was developed to incorporate four different searching strategies: (1) grey literature databases, (2) customized Google search engines, (3) targeted websites, and (4) consultation with contact experts. These complementary strategies were used to minimize the risk of omitting relevant sources. Since abstracts are often unavailable in grey literature documents, items’ abstracts, executive summaries, or table of contents (whichever was available) were screened. Screening of publications’ full-text followed. Data were extracted on the organization, year published, who they were developed by, intended audience, goal/objectives of document, sources of evidence/resources cited, meals mentioned in the guidelines, and recommendations for program delivery. Results The search strategies for identifying and screening publications for inclusion in the case study review was found to be manageable, comprehensive, and intuitive when applied in practice. The four search strategies of the grey literature search plan yielded 302 potentially relevant items for screening. Following the screening process, 15 publications that met all eligibility criteria remained and were included in the case study systematic review. The high-level findings of the case study systematic review are briefly described. Conclusions This article demonstrated a feasible and seemingly robust method for applying systematic search strategies to identify web-based resources in the grey literature. The search strategy we developed and tested is amenable to adaptation to identify other types of grey literature from other disciplines and answering a wide range of research questions. This method should be further adapted and tested in future research syntheses. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                akelane@gmail.com , @AndreaLane8
                Journal
                Health Info Libr J
                Health Info Libr J
                10.1111/(ISSN)1471-1842
                HIR
                Health Information and Libraries Journal
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1471-1834
                1471-1842
                01 December 2021
                March 2022
                : 39
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1111/hir.v39.1 )
                : 6-21
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Information Services National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) London UK
                [ 2 ] Information Services National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Manchester UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Andrea Heath, Information Services, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, UK.

                Email: akelane@ 123456gmail.com

                Twitter: @AndreaLane8

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9195-5632
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1784-3314
                Article
                HIR12414
                10.1111/hir.12414
                9300102
                34850535
                e72991e5-afa8-46d2-bb9e-5619168d906f
                © 2021 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Health Information and Libraries Journal published by Health Libraries Group and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 23 September 2021
                : 24 November 2020
                : 02 November 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 3, Pages: 16, Words: 12362
                Categories
                Review Article
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                March 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:20.07.2022

                Databases
                bibliographic databases,database searching,grey literature,information sources,information storage and retrieval,knowledge synthesis,literature searching,public health,supplementary searching,web sites

                Comments

                Comment on this article