Search

A cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare are evidence syntheses based on systematic literature searches. Conducting literature searches of high methodological quality requires the informed use of specific search techniques. Beyond text based searching in electronic databases, citation searching can be utilised either as standalone or supplementary technique to identify relevant publications. Despite being used for decades, the terminology, methodology and reporting of citation searching have not been standardised yet. We conducted an evidence guided, four round Delphi consensus study with 27 international methodological experts to develop guidance for citation searching in the context of systematic literature searches. The resulting Terminology, Application, and Reporting of Citation Searching (TARCiS) statement comprises ten recommendations on when and how to conduct and report citation searching, each with a rationale and explanation. In addition, four research priorities are presented. We recommend anyone doing systematic reviews or appraising their reporting to incorporate TARCiS into their standardised workflows.

Over the past 50 years, different types of reviews evolved with different objectives. In a summary, 48 review types were identified, which were grouped into seven “review families” with regard to their underlyinbjectives and their literature search methods. Among these, the “Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis” (FMRS) approach was not considered. The aim of our short paper is to introduce FMRS as a potential further member of a review family and to highlight its methodological characteristics, potentials, and challenges. FMRS can be used for exploration and focused description of a wide range of topics, but especially fos-pects of knowledge production, i.e., methodological and theoretical issues. A specific search in PubMed and medRxiv revealed nine publi-cations on FMRS between 2016 and 2022, the majority of which addressed research practice as the object of investigation, rather than topics of clinical research. The inclusion of the FMRS in a review family would be welcome due to the peculiarities of the systematisation of literature search within the approach of FMRS.

The recent transfer of RefHunter to a web format () describes a decisive step in its further development. As a practical aid to systematic literature research, the site now offers customisable search, filter, and display functions of the database overviews previously available in tabular form. In addition, further research aids have been expanded and made available in an improved format. A serves to develop RefHunter as a platform for cooperation and interprofessional exchange. To establish a cooperative updating and further development process, the database overviews can be edited by registered users in wiki style. An integrated forum and mutual well as newsletter functions facilitate the establishment of a “research community” for the maintenance and further development of the website as well as interdisciplinary exchange regarding the topic of literature research.

Methodological issues (e.g., ignoring missing data, irrelevant outcomes, flawed subgroup analyses) often limit the value of health research. One reason is that health researchers cannot easily find relevant methods guidance. To improve the findability of methods guidance, we initiated the development of the Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS, ). LIGHTS is a new open access database to effectively support health researchers, statisticians, methods consultants, methods developers, ethics boards, peer reviewers, journal editors, funding bodies, and others who are searching for optimal methods guidance in clinical research.

Assessing the quality of literature searches and their updating and adaptation require careful, comprehensive and transparent documentation. Guidelines exist for documenting the development and progress of a literature search. However, the authors are not aware of an editable template that can be used to document the literature search. Therefore, this paper aims to present a search template for the systematic and transparent development and documentation of a comprehensive literature search. The template includes essential steps of the database search as well as supplementary search options and offers a possibility for methodical and content-related justification of the included steps. It considers current guidelines for reporting search strategies. The search template is provided free of charge and is editable with common text editing programs. The contents are to be adapted according to the individual search strategies.

Since February 2018, the RefHunter manual provides tabular overviews of the basic and special functions of health-related databases as downloadable PDFs. For the purpose of further development, the transition to a web format is now being carried out. The web format will provide new, enhanced and need-oriented search and filter functions, information and presentation formats as well as improved possibilities for collaborative work and exchange.

Citation tracking (CT) collects references with citation relationships to pertinent references that are already known. This scoping review maps the benefit of and the tools and terminology used for CT in health-related systematic literature searching. We included methodological studies on evidence retrieval by CT in health-related literature searching without restrictions on study design, language, or publication date. We searched MEDLINE/Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL/EBSCOhost, LLISFT/EBSCOhost, LISTA/EBSCOhost, conducted web searching via Google Scholar, backward/forward CT of included studies and pertinent reviews, and contacting of experts. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction and analysis were performed by one reviewer and checked by another. We screened 11,861 references and included 47 studies published between 1985 and 2021. Most studies (96%) assessed the benefit of CT either as supplementary or primary/stand-alone search method. Added value of CT for evidence retrieval was found by 96% of them. Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index were the most common citation indexes used. Application of multiple citation indexes in parallel, co-citing or co-cited references, CT iterations, or software tools was rare. CT terminology was heterogeneous and frequently ambiguous. The use of CT showed an added value in most of the identified studies; however, the benefit of CT in health-related systematic literature searching likely depends on multiple factors that could not be assessed with certainty. Application, terminology, and reporting are heterogeneous. Based on our results, we plan a Delphi study to develop recommendations for the use and reporting of CT.

Background: While different proposals exist for a guideline on reporting Delphi studies, none of them has yet established itself in the health and social sciences and across the range of Delphi variants. This seems critical because empirical studies demonstrate a diversity of modifications in the conduction of Delphi studies and sometimes even errors in the reporting. The aim of the present study is to close this gap and formulate a general reporting guideline. Method: In an international Delphi procedure, Delphi experts were surveyed online in three rounds to find consensus on a reporting guideline for Delphi studies in the health and social sciences. The respondents were selected via publications of Delphi studies. The preliminary reporting guideline, containing 65 items on five topics and presented for evaluation, had been developed based on a systematic review of the practice of Delphi studies and a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. Starting in the second Delphi round, the experts received feedback in the form of mean values, measures of dispersion, a summary of the open-ended responses and their own response in the previous round. The final draft of the reporting guideline contains the items on which at least 75% of the respondents agreed by assigning scale points 6 and 7 on a 7-point Likert scale. Results: 1,072 experts were invited to participate. A total of 91 experts completed the first Delphi round, 69 experts the second round, and 56 experts the third round. Of the 65 items in the first draft of the reporting guideline, consensus was ultimately reached for 38 items addressing the five topics: Title and Abstract (n = 3), Context (n = 7), Method (n = 20), Results (n = 4) and Discussion (n = 4). Items focusing on theoretical research and on dissemination were either rejected or remained subjects of dissent. Discussion: We assume a high level of acceptance and interdisciplinary suitability regarding the reporting guideline presented here and referred to as the "Delphi studies in social and health sciences–recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting" (DELPHISTAR). Use of this reporting guideline can substantially improve the ability to compare and evaluate Delphi studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Design Methods Results Conclusion Clinical Relevance To provide (1) an overview of core characteristics of scoping and mapping review methodologies and (2) to illustrate the differences and similarities of these methodologies using literature on nursing mobile workstations.Systematic review.Systematic searches were conducted to identify (1) scoping and mapping review methodologies used in the field of nursing and (2) literature on nursing mobile workstations. For each systematic search, two reviewers independently screened all titles, abstracts, and full texts. We conducted narrative syntheses for both review questions. Publications on scoping and mapping review methodologies in the field of nursing were searched in MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL (September 2022). Publications on nursing mobile workstations were searched in MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, and Web of Science (April 2022).We identified six scoping and mapping review methodologies (aim 1): bibliometric analysis, evidence mapping, focused mapping review and synthesis, and scoping review. The methodologies aim to provide a graphical, tabular, or narrative overview without a formal critical assessment of the literature. We provide an overview of key variables that reflect the different focus of these methodologies. We also included 26 publications on nursing mobile workstations (aim 2). Nineteen different terms were used to describe the workstations. An overall definition of the nursing mobile workstation was not found.Scoping and mapping methodologies are regularly applied in nursing research. Although there is overlap between the different methodologies, we found some unique characteristics. Despite the regular use of nursing mobile workstations, little is known about their impact in care processes and important features. Future studies on nursing mobile workstations could explore the impact of the workstations in the care process and the current functions of the workstations. A universal definition of the workstations is warranted.Most publications address aspects of practicability of nursing mobile workstations, but we found no universal definition. Little knowledge is available on the impact of the workstations in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]