ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Search strategies for systematic reviews in reproductive medicine: a narrative review and practical guide.
Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nationwide Burden of Metallo-β-Lactamase Genes in Brazilian ClinicalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis review article outlines the key aspects of electronic search strategies used for systematic reviews, with a particular focus on developing a search strategy for systematic reviews in reproductive medicine. Additionally, we aimed to gather information on studies assessing the quality of literature searches and address conceptualization, search terms, database selection, peer review, translation, documentation, and report of searches. This review and practical guide has been written to assist not only those with experience and knowledge in health research but also beginner teams seeking the skills to conduct systematic reviews in the field. It uses the MEDLINE database, with both PubMed and Ovid interfaces, as examples to illustrate the process of developing a search strategy.
methodsA narrative review of the literature was conducted, and a practical guide for developing search strategies was developed.
resultsThere is a significant lack of information on the quality and effectiveness of search strategies used in systematic reviews within the field of reproductive medicine, as well as on the workflow for developing these strategies. For specialized topics, searching at least three to five databases is recommended to achieve high recall. It is also advisable to follow the PRESS guidelines and to report the databases searched, the date of access, and terms used. DISCUSSION: This review may serve as a foundation for future research to address these gaps. We provided a concise and practical overview of the key elements of search strategy development as a kick-off. The appendices, which include practical examples, a compilation of existing sources, guidelines, and a glossary of terms, can be useful for health professionals and researchers in creating a more advanced and reproducible literature search when planning a systematic review project.
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.