Search

A commonly reported challenge of using Google Search to identify studies for a systematic review is the high number of results retrieved. Thus, 'stopping rules' are applied when screening, such as screening only the first 100 results. However, recent evidence shows that Google Search estimates a much higher number of results than the viewable number, raising the possibility of exhaustive screening. This study aimed to provide further evidence on the feasibility of screening search results from Google Search exhaustively, and to assess the desirability of this in terms of identifying studies for a systematic review. We conducted a cross-case analysis of the search results of eight Google Search searches from two systematic reviews. Feasibility of exhaustive screening was ascertained by calculating the viewable number of results. Desirability was ascertained according to: (1) the distribution of studies within the results, irrespective of relevance to a systematic review; (2) the distribution of studies which met the inclusion criteria for the two systematic reviews. The estimated number of results across the eight searches ranged from 342,000 to 72,300,000. The viewable number ranged from 272 to 364. Across the eight searches the distribution of studies was highest in the first 100 results. However, the lowest ranking relevant studies were ranked 227th and 215th for the two systematic reviews. One study per review was identified uniquely from searching Google Search, both within the first 100 results. The findings suggest it is feasible and desirable to screen Google Search results more extensively than commonly reported.

The short time frame associated with rapid reviews can be challenging for researchers conducting qualitative evidence synthesis. In these circumstances a Best-Fit Framework Synthesis, drawing upon existing theory and/or research, may be conducted to rapidly make sense of qualitative evidence. This article discusses a "Rapid Best-Fit" approach to conducting Framework Synthesis within an 6-week rapid systematic review of qualitative evidence. In the absence of a suitable theoretical model to inform the synthesis, we drew upon our research objectives to structure a framework, and to identify the studies which contained the most relevant data. Themes from these studies were used to revise the initial framework before inductive thematic synthesis finalized theme content. This "Rapid Best-Fit" approach yielded results aligned with the needs of the commissioners of the review and is a useful addition to qualitative synthesis methods, allowing for the incorporation of diverse views and experiences into fast-paced decision making scenarios.

Background: Forwards citation searching is a valuable method for finding relevant studies in reviews where concepts are not clearly defined. Scopus and Web of Science can both be used for forwards citation searching but there is little evidence comparing the resources for this purpose. Method: 104 source records relevant to a scoping review of implementation and dissemination strategies in dementia care were checked for inclusion on Web of Science and Scopus. The number of citing references was recorded. Where citing references appeared unique to one of the resources, they were checked for inclusion on the other resource to assess the performance of citation links. Results: 1397 citing references were returned by Scopus and 1010 were returned by Web of Science. For the unique citing references returned by Web of Science (n = 52), 36 were subsequently found to be on Scopus but had failed to be picked up as citing a source record. Of the unique citing references returned by Scopus (n = 355), 83 were found to be on Web of Science but had failed to be picked up as citing a source record. 26 additional relevant records were identified for the review by forwards citation searching. All were found on Scopus; six would have been missed by searching Web of Science alone. Conclusion: Citation searching using Scopus alone would have found all additional relevant studies for the review. Both Scopus and Web of Science failed to return all citing references from the source records, even where they were present on the database, indicating poor links between citations.

Background: The search for studies for a systematic review should be conducted systematically and reported transparently to facilitate reproduction. This study aimed to report on the conduct and reporting of backward citation searching (ie, checking reference lists) and forward citation searching in a cross section of Cochrane reviews. Citation searching uses the citation network surrounding a source study to identify additional studies. Methods: Cochrane reviews were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the wildcard symbol and date limiting to the 3-month period November 2016 to January 2017. Cochrane reviews thus identified were screened for mention of citation searching. Descriptive detail on the conduct and reporting of citation searching was captured in data extraction forms and described and evaluated. Results: Two hundred fifteen Cochrane reviews were identified. One hundred seventy-two reviews reported backward citation searching, and 18 reviews reported forward citation searching. Web of Science was the most frequently reported citation index. The studies used for backward citation searching consisted mainly of studies meeting the inclusion criteria. One-third of reviews that reported forward citation searching used selected studies of importance. Reporting of citation searching was compliant with the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) standards, but full transparency requires additional detail that only a minority of reviews reported. Conclusion: The conduct of backward citation searching was more uniform than forward citation searching. This might be due to lack of MECIR guidance for forward citation searching. Reporting was generally compliant with MECIR, but this is not always sufficient to ensure full transparency.

The requirement for literature searches that identify studies for inclusion in systematic reviews should be systematic, explicit, and reproducible extends, at least by implication, to other types of literature review. However, realist reviews commonly require literature searches that challenge systematic reporting; searches are iterative and involve multiple search strategies and approaches. Notwithstanding these challenges, reporting of the "realist search" can be structured to be transparent and to facilitate identification of innovative retrieval practices. Our six-component search framework consolidates and extends the structure advanced by Pawson, one of the originators of realist review: formulating the question, conducting the background search, searching for program theory, searching for empirical studies, searching to refine program theory and identifying relevant mid-range theory, and documenting and reporting the search process. This study reviews reports of search methods in 34 realist reviews published within the calendar year of 2016. Data from all eligible reviews were extracted from the search framework. Realist search reports poorly differentiate between the different search components. Review teams often conduct a single "big bang" multipurpose search to fulfill multiple functions within the review. However, it is acknowledged that realist searches are likely to be iterative and responsive to emergent data. Overall, the search for empirical studies appears most comprehensive in conduct and reporting detail. In contrast, searches to identify and refine program theory are poorly conducted, if at all, and poorly reported. Use of this framework offers greater transparency in conduct and reporting while preserving flexibility and methodological innovation.

The literature searches that are used to identify studies for inclusion in a systematic review should be comprehensively reported. This ensures that the literature searches are transparent and reproducible, which is important for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a systematic review and re-running the literature searches when conducting an update review. Web searching using search engines and the websites of topically relevant organisations is sometimes used as a supplementary literature search method. Previous research has shown that the reporting of web searching in systematic reviews often lacks important details and is thus not transparent or reproducible. Useful details to report about web searching include the name of the search engine or website, the URL, the date searched, the search strategy, and the number of results. This study reviews the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews published in the 6-month period August 2016 to January 2017 (n = 423). Of these reviews, 61 reviews reported using web searching using a search engine or website as a literature search method. In the majority of reviews, the reporting of web searching was found to lack essential detail for ensuring transparency and reproducibility, such as the search terms. Recommendations are made on how to improve the reporting of web searching in Cochrane systematic reviews.

Background: Systematic reviews require detailed planning of complex processes which can present logistical challenges. Understanding these logistical challenges can help with planning and execution of tasks Objectives: To describe the perspectives of expert searchers on the main logistical challenges when carrying out supplementary searches for systematic reviews, in particular, forward citation searching and web searching. Methods: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 15 experts on searching for studies for systematic reviews (e.g. information specialists) working in health and social care research settings. Interviews were undertaken by video‐call between September 2020 and June 2021. Data analysis used thematic network analysis. Results: We identified three logistical challenges of using forward citation searching and web searching which were organised under the global theme of 'tension': time, team and technology. Several subthemes were identified which supported the organising themes, including allocating time, justifying time and keeping to time; reviewer expectations and contact with review teams; and access to resources and reference management. Conclusion: Forward citation searching and web searching are logistically challenging search methods for a systematic review. An understanding of these challenges should encourage expert searchers and review teams to maintain open channels of communication, which should also facilitate improved working relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A challenge when using Google Search to identify studies for a systematic review is managing the high number of results, which can number in the hundreds of thousands or even more. Studies and guidance on web searching suggest limiting the screening process, e.g. to the first 100 results. Objectives: Our objective in this case study is to demonstrate an alternative approach to screening the results retrieved by Google Search which is based on our experience that the viewable number of results is often far fewer than the estimated number calculated by the search engine. Methods: We screened the results of three searches of Google Search using our approach, which involves increasing the number of results displayed per page from 10 to the maximum of 100. We then calculated the viewable number of results and compared this with the estimated number. Results: The mean of the estimated number of results for the three searches was 569,454,000. The mean of the viewable number results was 463 (0.00008% of the mean of the estimated number of results). Conclusion: Our findings challenge the commonly reported view that the number of results retrieved when using Google Search is too high to screen in full. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies have found that women with gynaecological conditions and symptoms do not feel listened to by primary care clinicians (PCCs). Less understood is whether PCCs perceive that there are challenges around listening to and interacting with this patient group. Aim: To understand PCCs' perspectives on the challenges of listening to and interacting with women patients with gynaecological conditions and symptoms. Design & setting: Systematic review of English-language studies. Method: We searched ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Embase, HMIC (Healthcare Management Information Consortium), and MEDLINE from inception to July 2023. We also conducted forward and backward citation searches of included studies. Identified records were screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Quality appraisal used the Wallace checklist. 'Best-fit' framework synthesis was used to synthesise findings around themes that explored the challenges of patient-clinician interaction. Results: We identified 25 relevant articles. Perceived challenges associated with listening to and interacting with patients with gynaecological conditions and symptoms were identified at four 'levels': individual clinician level factors; structural and organisational factors; community and external factors; and factors related to gynaecological conditions. Interpretive analysis identified specific challenges relating to sociocultural factors affecting the consultation experience; the need for further education, training, or guidance for clinicians; factors affecting referral decisions; and factors related to service structure and organisation. Conclusion: PCCs acknowledge that empathy, respect, and attentive listening are important when interacting with women patients with gynaecological conditions and symptoms. However, these ideals are impeded by several factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]