Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources

By Trisha Greenhalgh, R. Peacock. British medical journal, 2005

1,957 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/45cd85a4c05c0c295e4569e08f20a6f3268e6390

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

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration (2011, background): “…reviews where the search terms are difficult to define, usefully extending to iterative citation searching of citations identified by citation searching (also known as ‘snowballing’) in some reported cases (Booth 2001, Greenhalgh and Peacock 2005, Papaioannou et al 2010, Linder et al 2015).”
Writing Literature Reviews (2014, background): “Greenhalgh and Peacock (2005) found that literature reviews that are limited to formal, pre-defined search strategies of databases and keywords “may fail to identify important evidence” (p. 2).”
An Integrative Model of Patient-Centeredness – A Systematic Review and Concept Analysis (2014, methodology): “Search strategy The search strategy included an electronic protocol driven search, combined with a comprehensive secondary search, based on the recommendations of Greenhalgh and Peacock [37].”
A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness (2013, background): “Associations refer to cases where one measure of patient experience (typically an overall rating of patient experience for a care provider) has a statistically signi ﬁ cant association with one or more clinical effectiveness or patient safety variable.”
Publication Bias in Special Education Meta-Analyses (2017, background): “Research has shown that reliance on electronic databases is likely to result in missed studies (Greenhalgh & Peacock, 2005).”
Stressing the relevance of resilience: a systematic review of resilience across the domains of sport and work (2017, methodology): “…PsychARTICLES, PsychINFO, and SPORTDiscus; (b) the application of further searches using Google Scholar to ensure that no key papers were omitted; (c) the scanning of the reference sections of all retained papers to ensure a comprehensive search of the literature (Greenhalgh & Peacock, 2005).”
How Students Learn Content in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Through Drawing Activities (2019, neutral): “To identify these studies, we searched research databases for relevant articles published in journals and books, including ERIC, EBSCO, and PsychINFO, and GoogleScholar using the keywords: (Bdraw*^ Bsketch*^) with (Blearning^ Binstruction^ Bcontent knowledge^) and with (BSTEM^ Bscience^ Bmath*^ Beng”
Simulation in manufacturing and business: A review (2010, background): “Reference chasing was also performed whilst reading the full-text, and the relevant references were added to the list of papers to be analysed [43].”
Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors (2017, background): “According to Greenhalgh and Peacock (2005), ‘‘in systematic reviews of complex and heterogeneous evidence […] [as is the case for this paper] formal protocoldriven search strategies may fail to identify important evidence’’ (p. 1065).”
Safety leadership practices for organizational safety compliance: developing a research agenda from a review of the literature (2016, background): “Greenhalgh and Peacock (2005) in a study of search methods discovered less than 30% of relevant articles by protocol driven search strategies (i.e. keywords).”
Positive Deviance in Theory and Practice: A Conceptual Review (2018, background): “A snowballing process (Greenhalgh and Peacock 2005), whereby the reference lists (backward snowballing) and citations (forward snowballing) of relevant, primary review articles were scanned, identified several (n = 15) critical and frequently cited studies missing from the database search.”