A checklist to assess database‐hosting platforms for designing and running searches for systematic reviews

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews require literature searches that are precise, sensitive and often complex. Database-hosting platforms need to facilitate this type of searching in order to minimise errors and the risk of bias in the results. Objectives: The main objective of the study was to create a generic checklist of criteria to assess the ability of host platforms to cope with complex searching, for example, for systematic reviews, and to test the checklist against three host platforms (EBSCOhost, OvidSP and ProQuest). Method: The checklist was developed as usual review work was carried out and through discussion between the two authors. Attributes on the checklist were designated as 'desirable' or 'essential'. The authors tested the checklist independently against three host platforms and graded their performance from 1 (insufficient) to 3 (performs well). Results: Fifty-five desirable or essential attributes were identified for the checklist. None of the platforms performed well for all of the attributes on the checklist. Conclusions: Not all database-hosting platforms are designed for complex searching. Librarians and other decision-makers who work in health research settings need to be aware of the different limitations of host platforms for complex searching when they are making purchasing decisions or training others.

Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review

“…Some of the possible resources needed for systematic reviews include databases, reference lists, personal communication, and hand searching [ 68 ]. Searching multiple databases and using a checklist is recommended for systematic reviews [ 69 , 70 ]. Some non-biomedical sources need to be searched for pharmacologic policy [ 71 ].…”

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

“…Previous studies examining the suitability of search systems for evidence synthesis have focused on a limited number of search systems and/or based their analysis on a review of the search interface, yet without any in‐depth examination of core functionalities that allow reliable query‐based searching . Previous studies have also calculated precision and recall of search systems from data reported by specific evidence‐synthesis studies . This analysis focuses instead on evaluation criteria for systematic reviews across disciplines, following universally accepted conduct guidance (ie, Cochrane, Campbell, and CEE).…”

A Comparison of Selected Bibliographic Database Search Retrieval for Agricultural Information

“…The study design was not constructed to evaluate the relevance algorithms of each database, simply the content retrieval. Databases are continuously updating not only their content but also their platforms, making the analysis of relevance algorithms time-sensitive (Bethel & Rogers 2014). Due to possible variations in relevance algorithms, this study decided to rely on date ranges to get a more constant measurement of the content contained in each one.…”