Background
Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.
Methods
The checklist was developed using a 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.
Results
The final checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.
Conclusions
The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and therefore reproducible.
This research provided new performance data on search filters to identify economic evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE. It demonstrated that highly sensitive economic evaluation filters are available, but that precision is low, yielding perhaps 5 relevant records per 100 records scanned.
Each framework and methods presented have different foci related to the ecosystem, health economics, or engineering practices. Their descriptions suggested transparency, repeatability, and the integration of components or of evidence into a single outcome as their main strengths. Our review is an initial step of a larger initiative by CADTH to develop the methods and processes to address the environmental impact question in an HTA.
Objectives: To identify existing methodological guidance for the conduct of rapid qualitative evidence syntheses, and examples of rapid qualitative evidence syntheses to describe the methods used.Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic scoping review. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, grey literature, including PROSPERO, with no date limits and solicited examples through experts and researchers in the field.Results: We found no methodological guidance to direct the conduct of rapid qualitative evidence synthesis, and 15 examples including 13 completed reviews and two protocols. Diverse methods to abbreviate the review process were followed, which largely mirror methods developed for rapid reviews of clinical effects. Abbreviated search strategies, including date and language restrictions, were common, as was the use of a single reviewer for screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. Descriptive approaches to synthesis, such as thematic synthesis, were more common than interpretive approaches, such as meta-ethnography.
Conclusion:There is a need to develop and explore methods for the synthesis of qualitative research that balance the need for rapidity with rigour. In the meantime, providing details on the methods used, shortcuts made, and the implications of such methodological choices, together with collective sharing of innovations, becomes more important under increased time constraints.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.