A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches

By Wichor M. Bramer, Gerdien B de Jonge, M. Rethlefsen, F. Mast, J. Kleijnen. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2018

749 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Creating search strategies for systematic reviews, finding the best balance between sensitivity and specificity, and translating search strategies between databases is challenging. Several methods describe standards for systematic search strategies, but a consistent approach for creating an exhaustive search strategy has not yet been fully described in enough detail to be fully replicable. The authors have established a method that describes step by step the process of developing a systematic search strategy as needed in the systematic review. This method describes how single-line search strategies can be prepared in a text document by typing search syntax (such as field codes, parentheses, and Boolean operators) before copying and pasting search terms (keywords and free-text synonyms) that are found in the thesaurus. To help ensure term completeness, we developed a novel optimization technique that is mainly based on comparing the results retrieved by thesaurus terms with those retrieved by the free-text search words to identify potentially relevant candidate search terms. Macros in Microsoft Word have been developed to convert syntaxes between databases and interfaces almost automatically. This method helps information specialists in developing librarian-mediated searches for systematic reviews as well as medical and health care practitioners who are searching for evidence to answer clinical questions. The described method can be used to create complex and comprehensive search strategies for different databases and interfaces, such as those that are needed when searching for relevant references for systematic reviews, and will assist both information specialists and practitioners when they are searching the biomedical literature.

Subfields: General Health Professions, History and Philosophy of Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3d3e7fe6ade4e1c4d4003aceb94e8ec7b0f2affa

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

  1. Matthew J. Page
  2. J. Gurevitch
  3. J. Koricheva
  4. Shinichi Nakagawa
  5. David Moher
  6. Douglas G. Altman
  7. K. F. Schulz
  8. David K. Evans

In History and Philosophy of Science

  1. Matthew J. Page
  2. David Moher

In Statistics and Probability

  1. Matthew J. Page
  2. J. Koricheva
  3. J. Gurevitch
  4. M. Lagisz
  5. David Moher
  6. Shinichi Nakagawa
  7. G. Stewart
  8. R. O’Dea

Citations in the corpus