Phrasing in Reproducible Search Methodology: The Consequences of Straight and Curly Quotation Marks

Barrick, Katie; Riegelman, Amy

doi:10.5860/crl.82.7.978

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We were limited by our access to databases and platforms; the reproduction team did not always have the same versions of resources, meaning our reproduction and validation numbers predictably varied. [25,36] For example, a search conducted in CINAHL, CINAHL with Full Text, and CINAHL Complete, all on the EBSCOhost platform, will produce slightly different results. We included the allowance for 10% difference between original and reproduction results to account for this variability.…”

Section: Study Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review search strategies are poorly described and not reproducible: a cross-sectional meta-research study

Rethlefsen

Brigham

Price

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine the reproducibility of biomedical systematic review search strategies. Design: Cross-sectional meta-research study. Population: Random sample of 100 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure is the percentage of systematic reviews for which all database searches can be reproduced. This was operationalized as fulfilling six key PRISMA-S reporting guideline items (database name, multi-database searching, full search strategies, limits and restrictions, date(s) of searches, and total records) and having all database searches reproduced within 10% of the number of original results. Results: The 100 systematic review articles contained 453 database searches. Of those, 214 (47.2%) provided complete database information (named the database and platform; PRISMA-S item 1). Only 22 (4.9%) database searches reported all six PRISMA-S items. Forty-seven (10.4%) database searches could be reproduced within 10% of the number of results from the original search; 6 searches differed by more than 1000% between the originally reported number of results and the reproduction. Only one systematic review article provided the necessary details for all database searches to be fully reproducible. Conclusion: Systematic review search reporting is poor. As systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines based upon them continue to proliferate, so does research waste. To correct this will require a multi-faceted response from systematic review authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and database providers.

show abstract

Section: Study Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review search strategies are poorly described and not reproducible: a cross-sectional meta-research study

Rethlefsen

Brigham

Price

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Full search strategies for other databases are included in the supplemental materials upon request. Note that straight, rather than curly, quotation marks were used throughout the search process to ensure accurate results (Barrick & Riegelman, 2021). To scope the full intergenerational ACEs literature, no publication date limits were applied, meaning that any qualifying study published by May 2022 would be included.…”

Section: Stage 2: Identify Relevant Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intergenerational Transmission of Parental Adverse Childhood Experiences and Children’s Outcomes: A Scoping Review

Zhang

Mersky

Gruber

et al. 2022

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are among the leading environmental causes of morbidity and mortality. Extending research on within-generation effects, more recent scholarship has explored between-generation consequences of ACEs. Despite growing interest in the intergenerational effects of parents’ ACEs on children’s outcomes, this line of scholarship has yet to be coalesced into a comprehensive review. The current study is a scoping review on the intergenerational transmission of parental ACEs and children’s outcomes. Ten databases such as PubMed, APA PsycArticles, and Social Work Abstracts were searched. To be included, empirical studies must have been published in English and analyzed associations between a cumulative measure of at least four parental ACEs and children’s outcomes. Sixty-eight studies qualified for the review and, among these, 60 were published in the most recent 5 years (2018–2022). Fifty-one studies had sample sizes smaller than 500, and 55 focused on the effect of maternal ACEs. Nearly all studies demonstrated that parental ACEs could affect children’s outcomes directly or indirectly via mechanisms like maternal mental health problems or parenting-related factors. By scoping the extant literature, this review advances the knowledge base regarding the intergenerational impacts of parental childhood trauma and children’s outcomes. It also reveals methodological limitations that should be addressed in future research to strengthen causal inferences along with practical implications for interventions that aim to interrupt the intergenerational transmission of trauma.

show abstract

Phrasing in Reproducible Search Methodology: The Consequences of Straight and Curly Quotation Marks

Cited by 2 publications

References 12 publications

Systematic review search strategies are poorly described and not reproducible: a cross-sectional meta-research study

Systematic review search strategies are poorly described and not reproducible: a cross-sectional meta-research study

Intergenerational Transmission of Parental Adverse Childhood Experiences and Children’s Outcomes: A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About