Search

Our previous work identified that nine leading guidance documents for seven different types of systematic review advocated the same process of literature searching. We defined and illustrated this process and we named it ‘the Conventional Approach’. The Conventional Approach appears to meet the needs of researchers undertaking literature searches for systematic reviews of clinical interventions. In this article, we report a new and alternate process model of literature searching called ‘A Tailored Approach’. A Tailored Approach is indicated as a search process for complex reviews which do not focus on the evaluation of clinical interventions. The aims of this article are to (1) explain the rationale for, and the theories behind, the design of A Tailored Approach; (2) report the current conceptual illustration of A Tailored Approach and to describe a user’s interaction with the process model; and (3) situate the elements novel to A Tailored Approach (when compared with the Conventional Approach) in the relevant literature. A Tailored Approach suggests investing time at the start of a review, to develop the information needs from the research objectives, and to tailor the search approach to studies or data. Tailored Approaches should be led by the information specialist (librarian) but developed by the research team. The aim is not necessarily to focus on comprehensive retrieval. Further research is indicated to evaluate the use of supplementary search methods, methods of team-working to define search approaches, and to evaluate the use of conceptual models of information retrieval for testing and evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses that evidence-based medicine requires clinicians to tackle patient management more systematically with the use of databases like MEDLINE. Background on MEDLINE; Collection of empirical data on genuine requests for information and search strategies; Improvement in the accuracy of literature searching.

It's an all-too-familiar story - you have spent several person-weeks compiling or updating a formidable web resource, a collection of links relevant to your organisation or activities and, within less than a year, 20-30% of the web pages are out of date.1-3 Furthermore, users of the resource have specialised needs that are best sustained at a sub-document level - in other words, it is paragraphs and sections of web documents that best address their needs, not the web pages themselves. This was the situation faced by ScHARR Information Resources, creators of the internationally renowned Netting the Evidence: A ScHARR Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice on the Internet. This brief article shares one potential solution - creation of a Google customised search engine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Qualitative research is increasingly valued as part of the evidence for policy and practice, but how it should be appraised is contested. Various appraisal methods, including checklists and other structured approaches, have been proposed but rarely evaluated. We aimed to compare three methods for appraising qualitative research papers that were candidates for inclusion in a systematic review of evidence on support for breast-feeding. Method: A sample of 12 research papers on support for breast-feeding was appraised by six qualitative reviewers using three appraisal methods: unprompted judgement, based on expert opinion; a UK Cabinet Office quality framework; and CASP, a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Papers were assigned, following appraisals, to 1 of 5 categories, which were dichotomized to indicate whether or not papers should be included in a systematic review. Patterns of agreement in categorization of papers were assessed quantitatively using κ statistics, and qualitatively using cross-case analysis. Results: Agreement in categorizing papers across the three methods was slight (κ =0.13; 95% CI 0.06–0.24). Structured approaches did not appear to yield higher agreement than that by unprompted judgement. Qualitative analysis revealed reviewers' dilemmas in deciding between the potential impact of findings and the quality of the research execution or reporting practice. Structured instruments appeared to make reviewers more explicit about the reasons for their judgements. Conclusions: Structured approaches may not produce greater consistency of judgements about whether to include qualitative papers in a systematic review. Future research should address how appraisals of qualitative research should be incorporated in systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]