IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0125931.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent Authors

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan B Koffel

Abstract

Background: Previous research looking at published systematic reviews has shown that their search strategies are often suboptimal and that librarian involvement, though recommended, is low. Confidence in the results, however, is limited due to poor reporting of search strategies the published articles. Objectives: To more accurately measure the use of recommended search methods in systematic reviews, the levels of librarian involvement, and whether librarian involvement predicts the use of recommended methods. Methods: A survey was sent to all authors of English-language systematic reviews indexed in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from January 2012 through January 2014. The survey asked about their use of search methods recommended by the Institute of Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and if and how a librarian was involved in the systematic review. Rates of use of recommended methods and librarian involvement were summarized. The impact of librarian involvement on use of recommended methods was examined using a multivariate logistic regression. Results: 1560 authors completed the survey. Use of recommended search methods ranged widely from 98% for use of keywords to 9% for registration in PROSPERO and were generally higher than in previous studies. 51% of studies involved a librarian, but only 64% acknowledge their assistance. Librarian involvement was significantly associated with the use of 65% of recommended search methods after controlling for other potential predictors. Odds ratios ranged from 1.36 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.75) for including multiple languages to 3.07 (95% CI 2.06 to 4.58) for using controlled vocabulary. Conclusions: Use of recommended search strategies is higher than previously reported, but many methods are still under-utilized. Librarian involvement predicts the use of most methods, but their involvement is under-reported within the published article.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan B Koffel, 2015. "Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent Authors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125931
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125931&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nikola Panic & Emanuele Leoncini & Giulio de Belvis & Walter Ricciardi & Stefania Boccia, 2013. "Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-7, December.
    2. David Moher & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Andrea C Tricco & Margaret Sampson & Douglas G Altman, 2007. "Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-9, March.
    3. Lucy Turner & James Galipeau & Chantelle Garritty & Eric Manheimer & L Susan Wieland & Fatemeh Yazdi & David Moher, 2013. "An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    4. Kun-ming Tao & Xiao-qian Li & Qing-hui Zhou & David Moher & Chang-quan Ling & Wei-feng Yu, 2011. "From QUOROM to PRISMA: A Survey of High-Impact Medical Journals' Instructions to Authors and a Review of Systematic Reviews in Anesthesia Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-5, November.
    5. Alessandro Liberati & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Cynthia Mulrow & Peter C Gøtzsche & John P A Ioannidis & Mike Clarke & P J Devereaux & Jos Kleijnen & David Moher, 2009. "The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-28, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    2. João Carlos Belloti & Aldo Okamura & Jordana Scheeren & Flávio Faloppa & Vinícius Ynoe de Moraes, 2019. "A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Jeroen P M Peters & Lotty Hooft & Wilko Grolman & Inge Stegeman, 2015. "Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-11, August.
    5. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    6. Daisuke Kato & Yuki Kataoka & Erfen Gustiawan Suwangto & Makoto Kaneko & Hideki Wakabayashi & Daisuke Son & Ichiro Kawachi, 2020. "Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-9, May.
    7. Lucy Turner & James Galipeau & Chantelle Garritty & Eric Manheimer & L Susan Wieland & Fatemeh Yazdi & David Moher, 2013. "An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    8. Padhraig S Fleming & Despina Koletsi & Nikolaos Pandis, 2014. "Blinded by PRISMA: Are Systematic Reviewers Focusing on PRISMA and Ignoring Other Guidelines?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-7, May.
    9. Xiaoqin Wang & Vivian Welch & Meixuan Li & Liang Yao & Julia Littell & Huijuan Li & Nan Yang & Jianjian Wang & Larissa Shamseer & Yaolong Chen & Kehu Yang & Jeremy M. Grimshaw, 2021. "The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), March.
    10. Danlu Liu & Jiaxin Jin & Jinhui Tian & Kehu Yang, 2015. "Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Endoscopic Ultrasound Diagnosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
    11. Porjai Pattanittum & Malinee Laopaiboon & David Moher & Pisake Lumbiganon & Chetta Ngamjarus, 2012. "A Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Out-of-Date Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-6, November.
    12. Nicholas Riches & Maria Panagioti & Rahul Alam & Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi & Stephen Campbell & Aneez Esmail & Peter Bower, 2016. "The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, March.
    13. Abeer Elshater & Hisham Abusaada, 2022. "Developing Process for Selecting Research Techniques in Urban Planning and Urban Design with a PRISMA-Compliant Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Tripathy, Prajukta & Jena, Pabitra Kumar & Mishra, Bikash Ranjan, 2024. "Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis of energy efficiency," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    15. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    16. Ludoviko Zirimenya & Fatima Mahmud-Ajeigbe & Ruth McQuillan & You Li, 2020. "A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between urogenital schistosomiasis and HIV/AIDS infection," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, June.
    17. Trang Nguyen & Sara Holton & Thach Tran & Jane Fisher, 2019. "Informal mental health interventions for people with severe mental illness in low and lower middle-income countries: A systematic review of effectiveness," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 65(3), pages 194-206, May.
    18. Natalya Ivanova & Ekaterina Zolotova, 2023. "Landolt Indicator Values in Modern Research: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    19. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    20. Su Keng Tan & Wai Keung Leung & Alexander Tin Hong Tang & Roger A Zwahlen, 2017. "Effects of mandibular setback with or without maxillary advancement osteotomies on pharyngeal airways: An overview of systematic reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125931. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.