Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29179733›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review.

Chris Cooper, Andrew Booth, Nicky Britten, Ruth Garside

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Implementing PTSD interventions for hospital nurses and physicians during COVID-19: A scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    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. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Schools' Readiness for Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Education: an Overview of Theoretical Models.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Chris CooperPenTAG, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, England. Christopher.Cooper@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0864-5607
Andrew BoothHEDS, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Nicky BrittenInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, England.
Ruth GarsideEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose and contribution of supplementary search methods in systematic reviews is increasingly acknowledged. Numerous studies have demonstrated their potential in identifying studies or study data that would have been missed by bibliographic database searching alone. What is less certain is how supplementary search methods actually work, how they are applied, and the consequent advantages, disadvantages and resource implications of each search method. The aim of this study is to compare current practice in using supplementary search methods with methodological guidance.

methodsFour methodological handbooks in informing systematic review practice in the UK were read and audited to establish current methodological guidance. Studies evaluating the use of supplementary search methods were identified by searching five bibliographic databases. Studies were included if they (1) reported practical application of a supplementary search method (descriptive) or (2) examined the utility of a supplementary search method (analytical) or (3) identified/explored factors that impact on the utility of a supplementary method, when applied in practice.

resultsThirty-five studies were included in this review in addition to the four methodological handbooks. Studies were published between 1989 and 2016, and dates of publication of the handbooks ranged from 1994 to 2014. Five supplementary search methods were reviewed: contacting study authors, citation chasing, handsearching, searching trial registers and web searching.

conclusionsThere is reasonable consistency between recommended best practice (handbooks) and current practice (methodological studies) as it relates to the application of supplementary search methods. The methodological studies provide useful information on the effectiveness of the supplementary search methods, often seeking to evaluate aspects of the method to improve effectiveness or efficiency. In this way, the studies advance the understanding of the supplementary search methods. Further research is required, however, so that a rational choice can be made about which supplementary search strategies should be used, and when.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicReview Literature as TopicHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalSearch EngineUnited KingdomAuthor contactCitation searchingHandbooksHandsearchingInformation scienceSupplementary searchingSystematic reviewsTrial searchingWeb searching

Identifiers

PMID29179733
PMCPMC5704629

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.