ReviewBMC medical research methodology2018
Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 30 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
122 citing papers in PubMed, 30 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ethical concerns and strategies for implementing artificial intelligence in healthcare: a review of empirical studies.BMC medical ethics · 2026Pooled it
- Alexithymia in neurodevelopmental populations: a scoping review of Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorder, and dual diagnosis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- The arts for disease prevention and health promotion: a systematic review.Nature medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Validation of Telehealth Outcome Categories for Patient Safety: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Pooled it
- A review of the 257 meta-analyses of the differences between females and males in prevalence and risk, protective factors, and treatment outcomes for mental disorder.BMC psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Real experiences and care needs of frail older patients: a systematic review of qualitative studies.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Biomarkers for predicting CAR-T cell therapy outcomes in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a systematic review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Carer perspectives on overweight, obesity and dental caries in early childhood: findings from a systematic qualitative review.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Pooled it
- The Complex Pattern Mismatch Negativity as a Potential Indicator of Psychosis Across all Phases of Illness: A Meta-Analysis.Clinical EEG and neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review for the evidence of recommendations and guidelines in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Pooled it
- The global psychological and physical effects of domestic abuse and violence on South Asian women: a qualitative systematic review.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Pooled it
- Response of infrared thermography related parameters to (non-)sport specific exercise and relationship with internal load parameters in individual and team sport athletes-a systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Pooled it
- Worldwide trend in research onFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Pooled it
- Cosmetic satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes following surgical treatment of single-suture craniosynostosis: a systematic review.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2023Pooled it
- The association between social class and the impact of treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy-based interventions for maternal perinatal depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Technology-Based Counselling for People with Dementia and Their Informal Carers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2023Pooled it
- Mindfulness-based interventions for non-affective psychosis: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Patient Safety Culture in Latin American Hospitals: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Methodological approaches to measuring the incidence of unplanned emergency department presentations by cancer patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies.
methodA literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching.
resultsEight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process.
conclusionsEight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.