Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36908843›Full record

ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2022

A suggested data structure for transparent and repeatable reporting of bibliographic searching.

Neal R Haddaway, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Melinda Davies, Julie Glanville, Bethany McGowan, Kate Nyhan, Sarah Young

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Campbell systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023
    Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Neal R HaddawayLeibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3902-2234
Melissa L RethlefsenHealth Sciences Library & Informatics Center University of New Mexico Albuquerque New Mexico USA.
Melinda DaviesKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Portland Oregon USA.
Julie GlanvilleGlanville.info York United Kingdom.
Bethany McGowanLibraries and School of Information Studies Purdue University West Lafayette Indiana USA.
Kate NyhanHarvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library Yale University New Haven Connecticut USA.
Sarah YoungUniversity Libraries Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academic searching is integral to research activities: (1) searching to retrieve specific information, (2) to expand our knowledge iteratively, (3) and to collate a representative and unbiased selection of the literature. Rigorous searching methods are vital for reliable, repeatable and unbiased searches needed for these second and third forms of searches (exploratory and systematic searching, respectively) that form a core part of evidence syntheses. Despite the broad awareness of the importance of transparency in reporting search activities in evidence syntheses, the importance of searching has been highlighted only recently and has been the explicit focus of reporting guidance (PRISMA-S). Ensuring bibliographic searches are reported in a way that is transparent enough to allow for full repeatability or evaluation is challenging for a number of reasons. Here, we detail these reasons and provide for the first time a standardised data structure for transparent and comprehensive reporting of search histories. This data structure was produced by a group of international experts in informatics and library sciences. We explain how the data structure was produced and describe its components in detail. We also demonstrate its practical applicability in tools designed to support literature review authors and explain how it can help to improve interoperability across tools used to manage literature reviews. We call on the research community and developers of reference and review management tools to embrace the data structure to facilitate adequate reporting of academic searching in an effort to raise the standard of evidence syntheses globally.

Identifiers

PMID36908843
PMCPMC9682961

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.