35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The purpose and contribution of supplementary search methods in systematic reviews is increasingly acknowledged. Numerous studies have demonstrated their potential in identifying studies or study data that would have been missed by bibliographic database searching alone.

          What is less certain is how supplementary search methods actually work, how they are applied, and the consequent advantages, disadvantages and resource implications of each search method.

          The aim of this study is to compare current practice in using supplementary search methods with methodological guidance.

          Methods

          Four methodological handbooks in informing systematic review practice in the UK were read and audited to establish current methodological guidance.

          Studies evaluating the use of supplementary search methods were identified by searching five bibliographic databases. Studies were included if they (1) reported practical application of a supplementary search method (descriptive) or (2) examined the utility of a supplementary search method (analytical) or (3) identified/explored factors that impact on the utility of a supplementary method, when applied in practice.

          Results

          Thirty-five studies were included in this review in addition to the four methodological handbooks. Studies were published between 1989 and 2016, and dates of publication of the handbooks ranged from 1994 to 2014.

          Five supplementary search methods were reviewed: contacting study authors, citation chasing, handsearching, searching trial registers and web searching.

          Conclusions

          There is reasonable consistency between recommended best practice (handbooks) and current practice (methodological studies) as it relates to the application of supplementary search methods.

          The methodological studies provide useful information on the effectiveness of the supplementary search methods, often seeking to evaluate aspects of the method to improve effectiveness or efficiency. In this way, the studies advance the understanding of the supplementary search methods. Further research is required, however, so that a rational choice can be made about which supplementary search strategies should be used, and when.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits.

            There is ongoing interest in including grey literature in systematic reviews. Including grey literature can broaden the scope to more relevant studies, thereby providing a more complete view of available evidence. Searching for grey literature can be challenging despite greater access through the Internet, search engines and online bibliographic databases. There are a number of publications that list sources for finding grey literature in systematic reviews. However, there is scant information about how searches for grey literature are executed and how it is included in the review process. This level of detail is important to ensure that reviews follow explicit methodology to be systematic, transparent and reproducible. The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed account of one systematic review team's experience in searching for grey literature and including it throughout the review. We provide a brief overview of grey literature before describing our search and review approach. We also discuss the benefits and challenges of including grey literature in our systematic review, as well as the strengths and limitations to our approach. Detailed information about incorporating grey literature in reviews is important in advancing methodology as review teams adapt and build upon the approaches described.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science

              Background Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged – Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each. Methods Eleven journal titles with varying impact factors were selected from each discipline (oncology and condensed matter physics) using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). All articles published in the selected titles were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003, and a stratified random sample of articles was chosen, resulting in four sets of articles. During the week of November 7–12, 2005, the citation counts for each research article were extracted from the three sources. The actual citing references for a subset of the articles published in 2003 were also gathered from each of the three sources. Results For oncology 1993 Web of Science returned the highest average number of citations, 45.3. Scopus returned the highest average number of citations (8.9) for oncology 2003. Web of Science returned the highest number of citations for condensed matter physics 1993 and 2003 (22.5 and 3.9 respectively). The data showed a significant difference in the mean citation rates between all pairs of resources except between Google Scholar and Scopus for condensed matter physics 2003. For articles published in 2003 Google Scholar returned the largest amount of unique citing material for oncology and Web of Science returned the most for condensed matter physics. Conclusion This study did not identify any one of these three resources as the answer to all citation tracking needs. Scopus showed strength in providing citing literature for current (2003) oncology articles, while Web of Science produced more citing material for 2003 and 1993 condensed matter physics, and 1993 oncology articles. All three tools returned some unique material. Our data indicate that the question of which tool provides the most complete set of citing literature may depend on the subject and publication year of a given article.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Christopher.Cooper@exeter.ac.uk
                A.Booth@sheffield.ac.uk
                N.Britten@exeter.ac.uk
                R.Garside@exeter.ac.uk
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                28 November 2017
                28 November 2017
                2017
                : 6
                : 234
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8024, GRID grid.8391.3, PenTAG, , University of Exeter Medical School, ; Exeter, England
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9262, GRID grid.11835.3e, HEDS, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), , University of Sheffield, ; Sheffield, England
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8024, GRID grid.8391.3, Institute of Health Research, , University of Exeter Medical School, ; Exeter, England
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8024, GRID grid.8391.3, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, , University of Exeter Medical School, ; Truro, England
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0864-5607
                Article
                625
                10.1186/s13643-017-0625-1
                5704629
                29179733
                b9525610-835a-40ea-936a-372e647ed702
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 6 June 2017
                : 10 November 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Public health
                supplementary searching,systematic reviews,handsearching,citation searching,web searching,trial searching,author contact,handbooks,information science

                Comments

                Comment on this article