Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25914722›Full record

ArticleEvidence based library and information practice

Grey Literature Searching for Health Sciences Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Study of Time Spent and Resources Utilized.

Ahlam A Saleh, Melissa A Ratajeski, Marnie Bertolet

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence based library and information practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Development and Evaluation of a Generative AI Chatbot for Database Searching in Systematic Review.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026
    Article
  8. Designing and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Sexual Health Literacy Among Adults With Intellectual Disabilities: A Scoping Review.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. How do search systems impact systematic searching? A qualitative study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ahlam A SalehAssistant Librarian Arizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Melissa A RatajeskiReference Librarian, Health Sciences Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Marnie BertoletAssistant Professor, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTE: BPCAUL1RR024153 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2006 to 2011
$73.9M
University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000005 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2012 to 2015
$50.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000005NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024153
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify estimates of time taken to search grey literature in support of health sciences systematic reviews and to identify searcher or systematic review characteristics that may impact resource selection or time spent searching.

methodsA survey was electronically distributed to searchers embarking on a new systematic review. Characteristics of the searcher and systematic review were collected along with time spent searching and what resources were searched. Time and resources were tabulated and resources were categorized as grey or non-grey. Data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests.

resultsOut of 81 original respondents, 21% followed through with completion of the surveys in their entirety. The median time spent searching all resources was 471 minutes, and of those a median of 85 minutes were spent searching grey literature. The median number of resources used in a systematic review search was four and the median number of grey literature sources searched was two. The amount of time spent searching was influenced by whether the systematic review was grant funded. Additionally, the number of resources searched was impacted by institution type and whether systematic review training was received.

conclusionsThis study characterized the amount of time for conducting systematic review searches including searching the grey literature, in addition to the number and types of resources used. This may aid searchers in planning their time, along with providing benchmark information for future studies. This paper contributes by quantifying current grey literature search patterns and associating them with searcher and review characteristics. Further discussion and research into the search approach for grey literature in support of systematic reviews is encouraged.

Identifiers

PMID25914722
PMCPMC4405801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.