Literature DB >> 26061597

Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in systematic reviews.

Paul Fehrmann1, Joelle Thomas2.   

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SR) are a strategic resource for many who may assume that comprehensive computer searches are used to identify the studies that are used in SR. The current study assessed the reports of comprehensive computer searching in SR in psychology. Comprehensive computer search methods listed as basic in SR manuals and publications of major SR organizations (e.g., Cochrane Collaboration) were the "recommended methods" that became items on a checklist used to assess computer search reports. A methodology index search in PsycINFO identified SR in psychology that were compared to SR identified in the Cochrane Database of SR. Checklist item frequencies supported descriptive analyses, and Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the PsycINFO and Cochrane SR. Two recommended computer search methods were significantly more common in Cochrane SR: truncation (z = -5.64, p < .001), controlled vocabulary (z = -5.08, p < .001 ). A third search method (Cited Reference Searching) was virtually absent (SR in psychology: 0/25; and Cochrane SR: 1/25). Confidence in SR conclusions may be undermined when evidence of recommended or empirically-based search methods is not seen. Results and suggestions might have value for those who use, evaluate, or develop guidelines for SR; research topics are also described.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  comprehensiveness; computer searches; quality; reporting; systematic review

Year:  2011        PMID: 26061597     DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.31

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Synth Methods        ISSN: 1759-2879            Impact factor:   5.273


  5 in total

Review 1.  Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible?

Authors:  Mary M Mullins; Julia B DeLuca; Nicole Crepaz; Cynthia M Lyles
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 5.273

2.  Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors.

Authors:  Jonathan B Koffel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Identifying Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Search Terminology: A Systematic Review of Health Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Joseph G L Lee; Thomas Ylioja; Mellanye Lackey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Naomi Schalken; Charlotte Rietbergen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-08-22

Review 5.  Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies.

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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.