Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30107788›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2018

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies.

Chris Cooper, Andrew Booth, Jo Varley-Campbell, Nicky Britten, Ruth Garside

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 30 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

122 citing papers in PubMed, 30 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. Worldwide trend in research onFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Pooled it
  14. 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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Patient Safety Culture in Latin American Hospitals: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

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

Funding

Department of Health 16/54/11
6 · The paper itself

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

Systematic Reviews as TopicDatabases, BibliographicGuidelines as TopicHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalReview Literature as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30107788
PMCPMC6092796

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.