Objectives: Errors in search strategies negatively affect the quality and validity of systematic reviews. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate searches performed in MEDLINE/PubMed to identify errors and determine their effects on information retrieval.Methods: A PubMed search was conducted using the systematic review filter to identify articles that were published in January of 2018. Systematic reviews or meta-analyses were selected from a systematic search for literature containing reproducible and explicit search strategies in MEDLINE/PubMed. Data were extracted from these studies related to ten types of errors and to the terms and phrases search modes.Results: The study included 137 systematic reviews in which the number of search strategies containing some type of error was very high (92.7%). Errors that affected recall were the most frequent (78.1%), and the most common search errors involved missing terms in both natural language and controlled language and those related to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search terms and the non-retrieval of their more specific terms.Conclusions: To improve the quality of searches and avoid errors, it is essential to plan the search strategy carefully, which includes consulting the MeSH database to identify the concepts and choose all appropriate terms, both descriptors and synonyms, and combining search techniques in the free-text and controlled-language fields, truncating the terms appropriately to retrieve all their variants.

Resumen: El objetivo principal de este estudio es evaluar si las revisiones sistemáticas en Biblioteconomía y Documentación (ByD) proporcionan información completa sobre todos los elementos que conforman el proceso de búsqueda. Se identificaron revisiones de las bases de datos Web of Science, Scopus, LISTA, Library Science Database, Medline y de una wiki, publicadas desde el 2000 hasta febrero de 2017, que tuvieran en el título los términos "revisiones sistemáticas" y/o "metaanálisis". Se creó una lista con 12 elementos recomendados de las principales guías de publicación para valorar el grado de información sobre cada uno de ellos. La mayoría de las revisiones en ByD son creadas por profesionales de la información, que informan de manera deficiente del método de búsqueda, ya que de las 94 revisiones finalmente seleccionadas, solo el 4,3% incluían todos los elementos de la búsqueda, siendo el nombre de la base de datos el más frecuente (95,6%) y el menos la plataforma (35,8%). Es necesario mejorar y completar la información del proceso de búsqueda si se desea reproducir o actualizar la revisión y evaluar su calidad.Palabras clave: Revisiones sistemáticas; estrategias de búsqueda; búsqueda de literatura; búsqueda bibliográfica; información de búsquedas; Biblioteconomía y Documentación; guías de publicación. Systematic reviews in Library and Information Science: analysis and evaluation of the search processAbstract: Objective: An essential component of a systematic review is the development and execution of a literature search to identify all available and relevant published studies. The main objective of this study is to analyse and evaluate whether the systematic reviews in Library and Information Science (LIS) provide complete information on all the elements that make up the search process. Methods: A search was launched in WOS, Scopus, LISTA, Library Science Database, Medline databases and a wiki published from 2000 to February 2017, in order to find and identify systematic reviews. The search was designed to find those records whose titles included the words "systematic review" and/or "meta-analysis". A list was created with the twelve items recommended from of the main publication guides, to assess the information degree on each of them. Results and conclusions: Most of the reviews in LIS are created by information professionals. From the 94 systematic reviews selected for analysis, it was found that only a 4.3% provided the complete reporting on the search method. The most frequently included item is the name of the database (95.6%) and the least one is the name of the host (35.8%). It is necessary to improve and complete the information about the search processes in the complete reports from LIS systematic reviews for reproducibility, updating and quality assessment improvement.

Objective: Locating systematic reviews is essential for clinicians and researchers when creating or updating reviews and for decision-making in health care. This study aimed to develop a search filter for retrieving systematic reviews that improves upon the performance of the PubMed systematic review search filter.Methods: Search terms were identified from abstracts of reviews published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the titles of articles indexed as systematic reviews in PubMed. Both the precision of the candidate terms and the number of systematic reviews retrieved from PubMed were evaluated after excluding the subset of articles retrieved by the PubMed systematic review filter. Terms that achieved a precision greater than 70% and relevant publication types indexed with MeSH terms were included in the filter search strategy.Results: The search strategy used in our filter added specific terms not included in PubMed’s systematic review filter and achieved a 61.3% increase in the number of retrieved articles that are potential systematic reviews. Moreover, it achieved an average precision that is likely greater than 80%.Conclusions: The developed search filter will enable users to identify more systematic reviews from PubMed than the PubMed systematic review filter with high precision.

No abstract

Resumen. La Directiva europea 2012/28/UE sobre usos autorizados de obras huérfanas promueve la adopción por parte de los Estados miembros de las medidas necesarias para asegurar que la información sobre obras huérfanas se registre en una base de datos única para todos los estados de la Unión Europea. En octubre de 2014, la Oficina de Propiedad Intelectual de la Unión Europea (EUIPO) puso en marcha esta base de datos con el objetivo de recopilar toda la información relevante sobre obras huérfanas que poseen las instituciones culturales europeas, proporcionando un punto de acceso único en línea, armonizado y transparente para la declaración de obras huérfanas. En dicho contexto, se presenta un análisis y valoración del estado actual de declaración de obras huérfanas en Europa, tomando como origen de los datos la explotación de los registros públicos de la Base de datos europea de Obras Huérfanas. Palabras clave: Obras huérfanas; Base de datos europea de obras huérfanas; Declaración de obras huérfanas; Propiedad intelectual; Patrimonio cultural.[en] Analysis of the status of the declaration of orphan works in Europe Abstract. The European Directive 2012/28 / EU on certain permitted uses of orphan works promotes the adoption by Member States of the measures necessary to ensure that information on orphan works is recorded in a single online database for all states of the European Union. In October 2014, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) launched this database with the aim of collecting all relevant information about orphan works held by European cultural institutions, providing unique online access point, harmonized and transparent for the declaration of orphan works. In this context, an analysis and assessment of the current status of orphan works in Europe is presented, taking as the data source the exploitation of the public records of the European Database of Orphan Works.