ArticleResearch in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP2024
Back to the basics: Guidance for designing good literature searches.
Article in Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of parkinson's disease with neuroimaging modalities using machine learning and artificial intelligence: a systematic review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Shaping the discourse on rehydrating children in heat stress: expositions from India.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- The importance of rigor in pharmacy research: Challenges and solutions.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The number of scientific publications is growing at an unprecedented rate. Failure to properly evaluate existing literature at the start of a project may result in a researcher wasting time and resources. As pharmacy researchers and scholars look to conceptualize new studies, it is imperative to begin with a high-quality literature review that reveals what is known and unknown about a given topic. The purpose of this commentary is to provide useful guidance on conducting rigorous searches of the literature that inform the design and execution of research. Guidance for less formal literature reviews can be adapted from best practices utilized within the formalized field of evidence synthesis. Additionally, researchers can draw on guidance from PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies) to engage in self-evaluation of their search strategies. Finally, developing an awareness of common pitfalls when designing literature searches can provide researchers with confidence that their research is designed to fill clearly articulated gaps in knowledge.
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.