OBJECTIVE: Complex and highly sensitive electronic literature search strategies are required for systematic reviews; however, no guidelines exist for their peer review. Poor searches may fail to identify existing evidence because of inadequate recall (sensitivity) or increase the resource requirements of reviews as a result of inadequate precision. Our objective was to create an annotated checklist for electronic search strategy peer review. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the library and information retrieval literature for important elements in electronic search strategies was conducted, along with a survey of individuals experienced in systematic review searching. RESULTS: Six elements with a strong consensus as to their importance in peer review were accurate translation of the research question into search concepts, correct choice of Boolean operators and of line numbers, adequate translation of the search strategy for each database, inclusion of relevant subject headings, and absence of spelling errors. Seven additional elements had partial support and are included in this guideline. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based guideline facilitates the improvement of search quality through peer review, and thus the improvement in quality of systematic reviews. It is relevant for librarians/information specialists, journal editors, developers of knowledge translation tools, research organizations, and funding bodies.
OBJECTIVE: Complex and highly sensitive electronic literature search strategies are required for systematic reviews; however, no guidelines exist for their peer review. Poor searches may fail to identify existing evidence because of inadequate recall (sensitivity) or increase the resource requirements of reviews as a result of inadequate precision. Our objective was to create an annotated checklist for electronic search strategy peer review. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the library and information retrieval literature for important elements in electronic search strategies was conducted, along with a survey of individuals experienced in systematic review searching. RESULTS: Six elements with a strong consensus as to their importance in peer review were accurate translation of the research question into search concepts, correct choice of Boolean operators and of line numbers, adequate translation of the search strategy for each database, inclusion of relevant subject headings, and absence of spelling errors. Seven additional elements had partial support and are included in this guideline. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based guideline facilitates the improvement of search quality through peer review, and thus the improvement in quality of systematic reviews. It is relevant for librarians/information specialists, journal editors, developers of knowledge translation tools, research organizations, and funding bodies.
Authors: Philippe Lachance; Pierre-Marc Villeneuve; Oleksa G Rewa; Francis P Wilson; Nicholas M Selby; Robin M Featherstone; Sean M Bagshaw Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Sanjit K Bhogal; Jacinta I Reddigan; Ori D Rotstein; Ashley Cohen; Dresden Glockler; Andrea C Tricco; Janet K Smylie; Stephen A Glazer; Jason Pennington; Lesley Gotlib Conn; Timothy D Jackson Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Edward J D Webb; David Meads; Ieva Eskyte; Natalie King; Naila Dracup; Jeremy Chataway; Helen L Ford; Joachim Marti; Sue H Pavitt; Klaus Schmierer; Ana Manzano Journal: Patient Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Charlene Soobiah; Shirra Berliner; Joanne M Ho; Carmen H Ng; Huda M Ashoor; Maggie H Chen; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Sharon E Straus Journal: CMAJ Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Akshay Sharma; Sherif M Badawy; Elizabeth M Suelzer; Hemant S Murthy; Pinki Prasad; Hesham Eissa; Paul A Carpenter; Mehdi Hamadani; Myriam Labopin; Hélène Schoemans; André Tichelli; Rachel Phelan; Betty K Hamilton; David Buchbinder; Annie Im; Rebecca Hunter; Ruta Brazauskas; Linda J Burns Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21