Tamara Rader1, Mala Mann2, Claire Stansfield3, Chris Cooper4, Margaret Sampson5. 1. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 2. Support Unit for Research Evidence, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales. 3. Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK. 4. Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. 5. Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As standardized reporting requirements for systematic reviews are being adopted more widely, review authors are under greater pressure to accurately record their search process. With careful planning, documentation to fulfill the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses requirements can become a valuable tool for organizing a systematic review literature search and planning updates. METHODS: A working group of information specialists convened to discuss current practice and were informed by a Web-based survey of over 260 systematic review authors, trials search coordinators, librarians, and other information specialists conducted in February/March 2011. DISCUSSION: Survey responses provided insight into current practices and difficulties of reporting searches. These included a lack of time, tools, clear understanding of the requirements, and uncertainty about responsibility for documenting these elements. This paper will present some of the practical aspects of documenting the systematic literature search. Section 1 provides background information and rationale for this paper. Section 2 discusses issues and recommendations arising from survey results. Section 3 outlines specific elements to be recorded. Section 4 guides the reader through the information management process. Section 5 concludes with implications for future research and practice. These principles are applicable to any large literature search for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guideline development.
INTRODUCTION: As standardized reporting requirements for systematic reviews are being adopted more widely, review authors are under greater pressure to accurately record their search process. With careful planning, documentation to fulfill the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses requirements can become a valuable tool for organizing a systematic review literature search and planning updates. METHODS: A working group of information specialists convened to discuss current practice and were informed by a Web-based survey of over 260 systematic review authors, trials search coordinators, librarians, and other information specialists conducted in February/March 2011. DISCUSSION: Survey responses provided insight into current practices and difficulties of reporting searches. These included a lack of time, tools, clear understanding of the requirements, and uncertainty about responsibility for documenting these elements. This paper will present some of the practical aspects of documenting the systematic literature search. Section 1 provides background information and rationale for this paper. Section 2 discusses issues and recommendations arising from survey results. Section 3 outlines specific elements to be recorded. Section 4 guides the reader through the information management process. Section 5 concludes with implications for future research and practice. These principles are applicable to any large literature search for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guideline development.
Authors: Melissa L Rethlefsen; Shona Kirtley; Siw Waffenschmidt; Ana Patricia Ayala; David Moher; Matthew J Page; Jonathan B Koffel Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-01-26
Authors: Melissa L Rethlefsen; Shona Kirtley; Siw Waffenschmidt; Ana Patricia Ayala; David Moher; Matthew J Page; Jonathan B Koffel Journal: J Med Libr Assoc Date: 2021-04-01
Authors: Chris Cooper; Andrew Booth; Jo Varley-Campbell; Nicky Britten; Ruth Garside Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 4.615