Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews

Abstract

to use the chapter as a basis for our work, of which we are immensely grateful. Many thanks to the Canadian Council on Learning for allowing the use of the list of Sources of Grey Literature. Campbell Library Methods papers The Campbell Library Methods Series comprises three types of publications: Methods Discussion Papers New or innovative ideas currently in development in the field of methodology, these papers are intended for discussion and do not represent official Campbell policy or guidance Methods Policy Notes Current Campbell Collaboration policy on specific methods for use in Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects Methods Guides Guides on how to implement specific systematic review methods Disclaimer Campbell Collaboration Methods Discussion Papers are published to promote discussion of new and innovative methods in systematic reviews, making these approaches available to a broad audience. Papers are published as submitted by the authors. They are not subject to review or editing by the Campbell Collaboration. The views expressed are those of the authors, and may not be attributed to the Campbell Collaboration. Campbell Collaboration Methods Discussion Papers do not represent Campbell policy.

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

“…It is, however, necessary to strike a balance between striving for comprehensiveness and maintaining relevance when developing a search strategy. […] The decision as to how much to invest in the search process depends on the question a review addresses and the resources that are available.” ( , p26) As a consequence, reviewers must select search systems that allow them to make the best use of their resources, that is, to retrieve the most relevant records in exchange for the least amount of time or funds.…”

“…The second and third goal of systematic reviews, reproducibility (also “replicability,” “reliability,” and “repeatability”) and transparency , require an explicit, transparent, and documented search process that allows reviewers to update or replicate a given synthesis search. “The search process needs to be documented in enough detail throughout the process to ensure that it can be reported correctly in the review, to the extent that all the searches of all the databases are reproducible.” ( , p41) Conduct and reporting guidance explicitly describe the steps necessary for a reviewer to ensure the rigorous and transparent documentation necessary to foster reproducibility. However, the functionality and capabilities of specific search systems can also influence reproducibility themselves.…”

Information retrieval for systematic reviews in food and feed topics: A narrative review

“…This premise underpins search approaches for systematic reviews of clinical trials in human health. It is expected practice that review authors search for unpublished trials, gray literature, and studies published outside of English language sources to minimize the possibility of publication bias …”

A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews

“…The NICE methods manual has been revised to stipulate that search terms should be documented for all literature resources, including search engines and websites, since it was reviewed by Briscoe . The Campbell Collaboration guidance recommends recording the URL and date accessed of useful webpages identified by web searching for citation purposes and stipulates that the names and search strategies of all resources used to identify studies, including search engines and websites, should be reported.…”

“…Items 1 to 4 relate to the search methods and item 5—which is an additional item not mentioned in the reporting guidance in Table —relates to the search results. The date that a useful webpage was accessed, which the Cochrane Handbook and Campbell Collaboration guidance recommends documenting for citation purposes, is not included in the table, as this describes the date a URL was most recently accessed prior to the publication of a review (eg, to check that the URL is still functional) rather than the date that the search that identified the webpage was conducted. The number of included studies identified by web searching (ie, studies identified by web searching that were included in the results and conclusions of the reviews) is also not included on the table, as this detail is unrelated to the transparency and reproducibility of the search methods.…”