Search

Background: Supplementary search methods, including citation searching, are essential if systematic reviews are to avoid producing biased conclusions. Little evidence exists on how to prioritise databases for citation searching or to establish whether using multiple sources is beneficial. Objectives: A systematic review examining urgent and emergency care reconfiguration was used to investigate the utility of citation searching on Web of Science (WOS) and/or Google Scholar (GS). Methods: This case study investigated numbers of studies, additional studies and unique studies retrieved from both sources. In addition, the time to search, the ease of adding references to reference management software and obtaining abstracts of studies for screening are briefly considered. Results: WOS retrieved 62 references after deduplication of the results, 52 being additional references not retrieved during the database searching. GS retrieved 134 unique references with 63 additional references. WOS and GS retrieved the same three additional included studies. WOS was less time intensive to search given the facility to restrict to English language papers and availability of abstracts. Conclusions: In a single systematic review case study, citation searching was required to identify all included studies. Citation searching on WOS is more efficient, where a subscription is available. Both databases identified the same studies but GS required additional time to remove non‐English language studies and locate abstracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The complexity associated with how interventions result—or fail to result—in outcomes and how context matters is increasingly recognised. Logic models provide an important tool for handling complexity, with contrasting uses in programme evaluation and evidence synthesis. To reconcile these, we developed an approach that combines the strengths of both traditions, propose a taxonomy of logic models, and provide guidance on how to choose between approaches and types of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA). The taxonomy distinguishes 3 approaches (a priori, staged, and iterative) and 2 types (systems‐based and process‐orientated) of logic models. An a priori logic model is specified at the start of the systematic review/HTA and remains unchanged. With a staged logic model, the reviewer prespecifies several points, at which major data inputs require a subsequent version. An iterative logic model is continuously modified throughout the systematic review/HTA process. System‐based logic models describe the system, in which the interaction between participants, intervention, and context takes place; process‐orientated models display the causal pathways leading from the intervention to multiple outcomes. The proposed taxonomy of logic models offers an improved understanding of the advantages and limitations of logic models across the spectrum from a priori to fully iterative approaches. Choice of logic model should be informed by scope of evidence synthesis, presence/absence of clearly defined population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) elements, and feasibility considerations. Applications across distinct interventions and methodological approaches will deliver good practice case studies and offer further insights on the choice and implementation of logic modelling approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In recognising the potential value of theory in understanding how interventions work comes a challenge - how to make identification of theory less haphazard? Objectives To explore the feasibility of systematic identification of theory. Method We searched PubMed for published reviews (1998-2012) that had explicitly sought to identify theory. Systematic searching may be characterised by a structured question, methodological filters and an itemised search procedure. We constructed a template (BeHEMoTh - Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) for use when systematically identifying theory. The authors tested the template within two systematic reviews. Results Of 34 systematic reviews, only 12 reviews (35%) reported a method for identifying theory. Nineteen did not specify how they identified studies containing theory. Data were unavailable for three reviews. Candidate terms include concept(s)/conceptual, framework(s), model(s), and theory/theories/theoretical. Information professionals must overcome inadequate reporting and the use of theory out of context. The review team faces an additional concern in lack of 'theory fidelity'. Conclusions Based on experience with two systematic reviews, the BeHEMoTh template and procedure offers a feasible and useful approach for identification of theory. Applications include realist synthesis, framework synthesis or review of complex interventions. The procedure requires rigorous evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the term hierarchy of evidence which is found frequently in research that is concerned with evidence-based medicine and evidence-based research. In the article the author offers his opinions on the term and discusses alternatives for it which can be used to conduct more accurate and effective research, including signal-to noise ratios, evidence typologies and evidence networks. Research which has evaluated the effectiveness of different types of research methodologies is discussed.

Background and objectives: The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Methods: Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework—Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA)—was used to examine the main review types. Results: Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Conclusions: Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on speculative investigation, the measurement of information retrieval. Systematic reviews increasingly feature on the agenda of the health librarian. For the review team, the concept of appropriateness is important. The denominators for each method are based on an average figure across the review. Each method is compared with all other methods combined, whereas a more useful comparator is head-to-head between competing methods. The availability of suitable data dictates that the chosen review is in an area of complex evidence, making direct comparisons difficult with health technology assessments. This method is potentially more intuitive and helps in advancing discussions about when a particular search method is worth initiating or worth pursuing.

Discusses role of systematic reviews in medical research. Renewal cost of the systematic reviews; Features of the systematic reviews; Benefits of the systematic reviews in medical research.

Background and objectives: The last decade has witnessed increased recognition of the value of literature reviews for advancing understanding and decision making. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the range of methodological approaches and types of review. However, there remains uncertainty over definitions and search requirements beyond those for the 'traditional' systematic review. This study aims to characterise health related reviews by type and to provide recommendations on appropriate methods of information retrieval based on the available guidance. Methods: A list of review types was generated from published typologies and categorised into 'families' based on their common features. Guidance on information retrieval for each review type was identified by searching pubmed, medline and Google Scholar, supplemented by scrutinising websites of review producing organisations. Results: Forty‐eight review types were identified and categorised into seven families. Published guidance reveals increasing specification of methods for information retrieval; however, much of it remains generic with many review types lacking explicit requirements for the identification of evidence. Conclusions: Defining review types and utilising appropriate search methods remain challenging. By familiarising themselves with a range of review methodologies and associated search methods, information specialists will be better equipped to select suitable approaches for future projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Registration and publication of trial protocols has become increasingly important and a requirement in some sources of funding and publication. Increased access to protocols yields many potential benefits, but there are issues regarding identification of published protocols. The aim of this investigation is to compare methods of retrieval for identifying trial protocols in a systematic review. Methods: Six stages of searching (checking published trial reports, searching journal Web sites, Internet searching, trial registers, bibliographic databases, and contact with authors) were completed to identify 74 trial protocols. Results: Fifty‐seven percent of the trial protocols were identified upon completion of all 6 stages of searching. The most comprehensive method was searching trial registers that identified 51% of the protocols. Contact with authors was most effective at uniquely identifying protocols; 12% were retrieved via this single method. Contact with authors was the only effective method of identifying protocols for trials pre‐2005. Discussion When attempting to identify trial protocols to include in systematic reviews, some methods are relatively quick to undertake but deliver a low yield. The most effective search strategy for most sources was retrieval by trial registration number where available. Conclusions: For protocols of trial results published pre‐2005, review authors should contact authors as a priority. For protocols post‐2005, they should check the trial publication for protocol details, search trial registers, and contact authors, ceasing searching once a predetermined point of diminishing returns has been reached. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Literature for a systematic review on the student experience of e-learning is located across a range of subject areas including health, education, social science, library and information science. Objectives: To assess the merits and shortcomings of using different search techniques in retrieval of evidence in the social science literature. Methods: A conventional subject search was undertaken as the principal method of identifying the literature for the review. Four supplementary search methods were used including citation searching, reference list checking, contact with experts and pearl growing. Results: The conventional subject search identified 30 of 41 included references; retrieved from 10 different databases. References were missed by this method and a further 11 references were identified via citation searching, reference list checking and contact with experts. Pearl growing was suspended as the nominated pearls were dispersed across numerous databases, with no single database indexing more than four pearls. Conclusions: Searching within the social sciences literature requires careful consideration. Conventional subject searching identified the majority of references, but additional search techniques were essential and located further high quality references. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]