Critical Assessment of Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews in Endodontics

Yaylali, Ibrahim Ethem; Alaçam, Tayfun

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2016.02.018

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite wide usage of the PRISMA Statement [10], compliance with its items regarding literature search reporting is low [11][12][13][14]. Even for those studies which explicitly reference PRISMA, there is only slight, statistically non-significant evidence of improved reporting, as found by Page et al [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is the first to assess the quality of search strategies used in the study of neurological conditions, manually examining the methods of 182 consecutively published systematic reviews over a 2‐year period. The quality assessment criteria were based upon those used by previous studies , the AMSTAR guidelines , the PRESS checklist and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration . It is also the first to develop and validate hedges for migraine, stroke, dementia, epileptic seizures, PD and MS. Three reviewers manually reviewed 10 311 consecutively published articles in the process, an enormous task to ensure sufficient precision in our results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The quality of the overall search strategy was assessed using 12 questionnaire items. These questions were derived from those used by prior studies and the AMSTAR guidelines and were based upon the recommendations specified in the Cochrane Handbook . The quality of the condition‐specific search strategy (i.e.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the quality of systematic reviews of neurological conditions: an assessment of current practice and the development and validation of six new search strategies

Bui

Abdaem

Muccilli

et al. 2018

Euro J of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MEDLINE is the medical database that is most frequently used in systematic reviews to find information [34, 35] and is accessible via different interfaces. Various studies have confirmed that PubMed is the interface that authors most frequently use [36, 37].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval

Oliván

Cuenca

Avilès

2019

jmla

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Errors in search strategies negatively affect the quality and validity of systematic reviews. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate searches performed in MEDLINE/PubMed to identify errors and determine their effects on information retrieval.Methods: A PubMed search was conducted using the systematic review filter to identify articles that were published in January of 2018. Systematic reviews or meta-analyses were selected from a systematic search for literature containing reproducible and explicit search strategies in MEDLINE/PubMed. Data were extracted from these studies related to ten types of errors and to the terms and phrases search modes.Results: The study included 137 systematic reviews in which the number of search strategies containing some type of error was very high (92.7%). Errors that affected recall were the most frequent (78.1%), and the most common search errors involved missing terms in both natural language and controlled language and those related to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search terms and the non-retrieval of their more specific terms.Conclusions: To improve the quality of searches and avoid errors, it is essential to plan the search strategy carefully, which includes consulting the MeSH database to identify the concepts and choose all appropriate terms, both descriptors and synonyms, and combining search techniques in the free-text and controlled-language fields, truncating the terms appropriately to retrieve all their variants.

show abstract

Critical Assessment of Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews in Endodontics

Cited by 14 publications

References 98 publications

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

Improving the quality of systematic reviews of neurological conditions: an assessment of current practice and the development and validation of six new search strategies

Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About