1 / 15

Quality and reporting of literature search strategies

Quality and reporting of literature search strategies in systematic reviews published by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine affiliated authors: an assessment using PRISMA, AMSTAR and PRESS c riteria Jane Falconer User Support Services Librarian. Methodology. n = 44.

braden
Download Presentation

Quality and reporting of literature search strategies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality and reporting of literature search strategies in systematic reviews published by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine affiliated authors: an assessment using PRISMA, AMSTAR and PRESS criteria Jane Falconer User Support Services Librarian

  2. Methodology n = 44 • Web of Science Core Content • Organisation = LSHTM • Title contains “systematic review” • Year = 2015 or 2016 • 58 item data extraction form with criteria from • PRISMA • AMSTAR • PRESS

  3. PRISMA reporting characteristics Names of databases unambiguously stated Supplier of databases unambiguously stated Start/end dates clearly stated to at least mm/yy accuracy Fully repeatable search for one database Fully repeatable search for all databases Language not limited, or rationale for limit provided 50%

  4. AMSTAR appraisal criteria Were both keywords and thesaurus terms provided?

  5. PRESS quality criteria – basic skills

  6. PRESS quality criteria – subject headings Are the subject headings relevant? Are all relevant subject headings included, including previous terms? Are subject headings chosen at correct level? Not too broad/too narrow? Are subject headings exploded where necessary? Are both subject headings and terms in free text used for each concept? n = 33

  7. Overall quality score 45% Showed serious flaws No search strategy was published Major problems leading to lack of confidence in study validity 25% Could not be assessed due to lack of information Minor problems unlikely to impact study validity 7% Good quality search, clearly reported No problems with reporting or search quality

  8. Image in the public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

  9. References Gómez-Sánchez, A. F., et al. (2016). Evaluating the information retrieval quality and methodological accuracy of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on congenital malformations (2004-2014). Paper presented at the 15th EAHIL Conference, Seville, Spain. http://www.bvsspa.es/eahil2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/G4.pdf CWTS (Centre for Science and Technology Studies) (2017) CWTS Leiden Ranking 2017. [website] . Leiden University, Netherlands. http://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2017/list THE (2014) REF 2014 results: table of excellence. [website] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ref-2014-results-table-of-excellence/2017590.article Page, M. J., et al. (2016). Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoSMed, 13(5), e1002028. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 Sampson, M., & McGowan, J. (2006). Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. J ClinEpidemiol, 59(10), 1057-1063. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.007 Bullers, K., et al. (2018). It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. J Med LibrAssoc, 106(2), 198-207. Page, M. J., & Moher, D. (2017). Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 263. doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8 Mead, T. L., & Richards, D. T. (1995). Librarian participation in meta-analysis projects. Bull Med LibrAssoc, 83(4), 461-464. Rethlefsen, M. L., et al. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J ClinEpidemiol, 68(6), 617-626. All photographs from Pexels (https://www.pexels.com) unless otherwise noted and distributed under a CC0 license.

  10. Jane Falconer jane.falconer@lshtm.ac.uk @falkie71 ORCID: 0000-0002-7329-0577

More Related