Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29073718›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2018

Evaluation of a new method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews.

Wichor M Bramer, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Frans Mast, Jos Kleijnen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 16 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Electronically assisted surveillance systems of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2020
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Wichor M BramerMedical Library-Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2681-9180
Melissa L RethlefsenSpencer S Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5322-9368
Frans MastMedical Library-Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jos KleijnenDepartment of Family Medicine, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR001067 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DERE, WILLARD H., HESS, RACHEL · 2013 to 2017
$19.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001067
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate and validate the time of completion and results of a new method of searching for systematic reviews, the exhaustive search method (ESM), using a pragmatic comparison.

methodsSingle-line search strategies were prepared in a text document. Term completeness was ensured with a novel optimization technique. Macros in MS Word converted the syntaxes between databases and interfaces almost automatically. We compared search characteristics, such as number of search terms and databases, and outcomes, such as number of included and retrieved references and precision, from ESM searches and other Dutch academic hospitals identified by searching PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2014 and 2016. We compared time to perform the ESM with a secondary comparator of recorded search times from published literature and contact with authors to acquire unpublished data.

resultsWe identified 73 published Erasmus MC systematic reviews and 258 published by other Dutch academic hospitals meeting our criteria. We pooled search time data from 204 other systematic reviews. The ESM searches differed by using 2 times more databases, retrieving 44% more references, including 20% more studies in the final systematic review, but the time needed for the search was 8% of that of the control group. Similarities between methods include precision and the number of search terms.

conclusionsThe evaluated similarities and differences suggest that the ESM is a highly efficient way to locate more references meeting the specified selection criteria in systematic reviews than traditional search methods. Further prospective research is required.

Indexed as

Systematic Reviews as TopicAcademic Medical CentersBibliometricsDatabases, BibliographicHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalLibraries, MedicalMedical InformaticsNetherlandsPubMedSearch EngineSoftwareUniversitiesbibliographic databasesinformation storage and retrievalquality improvementreview literature as topic

Identifiers

PMID29073718
PMCPMC5920798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.