Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41626904›Full record

ReviewResearch synthesis methods2025

A practical guide to evaluating sensitivity of literature search strings for systematic reviews using relative recall.

Malgorzata Lagisz, Yefeng Yang, Sarah Young, Shinichi Nakagawa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research synthesis methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Language inclusion intentions in scoping reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Malgorzata LagiszDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3993-6127
Yefeng YangEvolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8610-4016
Sarah YoungCarnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8301-5106
Shinichi NakagawaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7765-5182

Funding

Australian Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic searches of published literature are a vital component of systematic reviews. When search strings are not "sensitive," they may miss many relevant studies limiting, or even biasing, the range of evidence available for synthesis. Concerningly, conducting and reporting evaluations (validations) of the sensitivity of the used search strings is rare, according to our survey of published systematic reviews and protocols. Potential reasons may involve a lack of familiarity or inaccessibility of complex sensitivity evaluation approaches. We first clarify the main concepts and principles of search string evaluation. We then present a simple procedure for estimating a relative recall of a search string. It is based on a pre-defined set of "benchmark" publications. The relative recall, that is, the sensitivity of the search string, is the retrieval overlap between the evaluated search string and a search string that captures only the benchmark publications. If there is little overlap (i.e., low recall or sensitivity), the evaluated search string should be improved to ensure that most of the relevant literature can be captured. The presented benchmarking approach can be applied to one or more online databases or search platforms. It is illustrated by five accessible, hands-on tutorials for commonly used online literature sources. Overall, our work provides an assessment of the current state of search string evaluations in published systematic reviews and protocols. It also paves the way to improve evaluation and reporting practices to make evidence synthesis more transparent and robust.

Indexed as

bibliographic databasesevidence synthesisinformation retrievalinformation storagesearchingvalidity

Identifiers

PMID41626904
PMCPMC12621535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-SA
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.