PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement

McGowan, Jessie; Sampson, Margaret; Salzwedel, Douglas M; Cogo, Elise; Foerster, Vicki; Lefebvre, Carol A.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021

Cited by 3,239 publications

(2,395 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

2,134

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It draws on the checklists and tools developed by Centre for Reviews andDissemination (2009), McGowan et al (2010), McGowan et al (2016) Rader et al (2014) and Shamseer et al (2015). The components of the quality appraisal framework utilised in this study can be found in Figure 4 below.…”

Section: Quality Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Will Web Search Engines Replace Bibliographic Databases in the Systematic Identification of Research?

Bates

Best

McQuilkin

et al. 2017

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Will web search engines replace bibliographic databases in the systematic identification of research? AbstractThe availability of web search engines provides opportunities in addition to those provided by bibliographic databases for identifying academic literature, but their usefulness for retrieving research is uncertain. A rigorous literature search was undertaken to investigate whether web search engines might replace bibliographic databases, using empirical research in health and social care as a case study. Eight databases and five web search engines were searched between 20 July and 6 August 2015. Sixteen unique studies that compared at least one database with at least one web search engine were examined, as well as drawing lessons from the authors' own search process. Web search engines were limited in that the searcher cannot be certain that the principles of Boolean logic will apply and they were more limited than bibliographic databases in their functions such as exporting abstracts. Recommendations are made for improving the rigour and quality of reporting studies of academic literature searching.

show abstract

Section: Quality Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Will Web Search Engines Replace Bibliographic Databases in the Systematic Identification of Research?

Bates

Best

McQuilkin

et al. 2017

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A second librarian conducted an independent peer-review of the search strategy using the PRESS checklist. [10] The search was limited to systematic (Table S3, supporting information). For studies that were accepted by both reviewers, full texts were obtained and evaluated independently.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Information Needs for Hirschsprung Disease Through Caregiver Involvement via Social Media: A Prioritization Study and Literature Review (Preprint)

Wittmeier¹,

Hobbs-Murison²,

Holland³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The adequacy of the strategy should be assessed using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist. 140,141 If the search strategy is judged to be inappropriate or inadequate for the search question, it may be better to select another review for testing. The subject search may have specific exclusions, such as animal studies, and the impact of explicit exclusions on the results should be considered.…”

Section: Relative Recallmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study

Lefebvre

Glanville

Beale

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Note to reader: it is acknowledged that there has been a regrettable delay between carrying out the project, including the searches, and the publication of this report, because of serious illness of the principal investigator. The searches were carried out in 2010/11. Published November 2017 DOI: 10.3310/hta21690This report should be referenced as follows:Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Beale S, Boachie C, Duffy S, Fraser C, et al. Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study. Health Technol Assess 2017;21(69). This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/). Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted inEditorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme or, commissioned/managed through the Methodology research programme (MRP), and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions. To strengthen the evidence base for health research, the MRP oversees and implements the evolving strategy for high-quality methodological research. In addition to the MRC and NIHR funding partners, the MRP takes into account the needs of other stakeholders including the devolved administrations, industry R&D, and regulatory/advisory agencies and other public bodies. The MRP funds investigator-led and needsled research proposals from across the UK. In addition to the standard MRC and RCUK terms and conditions, projects commissioned/managed by the MRP are expected to provide a detailed report on the research findings and may publ...

show abstract

PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement

Abstract: The PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement should help to guide and improve the peer review of electronic literature search strategies.

Cited by 3,239 publications

References 8 publications

Will Web Search Engines Replace Bibliographic Databases in the Systematic Identification of Research?

Will Web Search Engines Replace Bibliographic Databases in the Systematic Identification of Research?

Identifying Information Needs for Hirschsprung Disease Through Caregiver Involvement via Social Media: A Prioritization Study and Literature Review (Preprint)

Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About