Eysenbach, Tuische and Diepgen’s Evaluation of Web Searching for Identifying Unpublished Studies for Systematic Reviews: An Innovative Study Which is Still Relevant Today

Briscoe, Simon

doi:10.18438/b8f049

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a study, which aimed to retrospectively test whether using a search engine could identify studies missed by the bibliographic database searches used for seven Cochrane Reviews, Eysenbach et al (2001) reported that seven searches of the now defunct AltaVista search engine retrieved a mean of 61 results (range 0-168). The searches for this study were conducted in March 2000 when the web was comparatively small compared to this study, which might partly explain the low number of results retrieved (Briscoe, 2016). More recently, Cooper et al (2021) used a virtual private network to mimic different geographic locations as a way of testing whether a searcher's location affects the results that are retrieved when searching for studies using Google Search.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An alternative screening approach for Google Search identifies an accurate and manageable number of results for a systematic review (case study)

Briscoe

Rogers

2021

Health Info Libraries J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA challenge when using Google Search to identify studies for a systematic review is managing the high number of results, which can number in the hundreds of thousands or even more. Studies and guidance on web searching suggest limiting the screening process, e.g. to the first 100 results.ObjectivesOur objective in this case study is to demonstrate an alternative approach to screening the results retrieved by Google Search which is based on our experience that the viewable number of results is often far fewer than the estimated number calculated by the search engine.MethodsWe screened the results of three searches of Google Search using our approach, which involves increasing the number of results displayed per page from 10 to the maximum of 100. We then calculated the viewable number of results and compared this with the estimated number.ResultsThe mean of the estimated number of results for the three searches was 569,454,000. The mean of the viewable number results was 463 (0.00008% of the mean of the estimated number of results).ConclusionOur findings challenge the commonly reported view that the number of results retrieved when using Google Search is too high to screen in full.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An alternative screening approach for Google Search identifies an accurate and manageable number of results for a systematic review (case study)

Briscoe

Rogers

2021

Health Info Libraries J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The growth of the web in recent years means that a far greater amount of literature can be found than in the past (Briscoe, 2016 ). Google and Google Scholar are the most popular search engines.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review

Heath

Levay

Tuvey

2021

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Information specialists conducting searches for systematic reviews need to consider key questions around which and how many sources to search. This is particularly important for public health topics where evidence may be found in diverse sources. Objectives:The objective of this review is to give an overview of recent studies on information retrieval guidance and methods that could be applied to public health evidence and used to guide future searches. Methods: A literature search was performed in core databases and supplemented by browsing health information journals and citation searching. Results were sifted and reviewed. Results: Seventy-two papers were found and grouped into themes covering sources and search techniques. Public health topics were poorly covered in this literature. Discussion: Many researchers follow the recommendations to search multiple databases. The review topic influences decisions about sources. Additional sources covering grey literature eliminate bias but are time-consuming and difficult to search systematically. Public health searching is complex, often requiring searches in multidisciplinary sources and using additional methods.Conclusions: Search planning is advisable to enable decisions about which and how many sources to search. This could improve with more work on modelling search scenarios, particularly in public health topics, to examine where publications were found and guide future research.

show abstract

The phronesis of expert searchers on using forward citation searching and web searching to search for studies for systematic reviews: A hermeneutic phenomenological analysis

Briscoe

Abbott

Meléndez-Torres

2022

Journal of Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews aim to use formalised and explicitly described methods. However, studies show that systematic reviews pose challenges which can only be resolved using expert judgement that is resistant to explicit formulation. The expertise required to make such judgements can be understood as practical knowledge or phronesis, and is based on lived experiences rather than following clearly defined rules. This study used qualitative methods to investigate the phronesis of expert searchers in the development and conduct of searches for studies for systematic reviews. In particular, the study focused on two ‘supplementary’ search methods: forward citation searching and web searching. Data collection used semi-structured interviews with 15 expert searchers and the analysis used a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. The findings describe five habits of phronesis when searching for studies: Outcome-oriented; persistent; adaptive; critically engaged and holistic. The study brings attention to the use of expert judgement when searching for studies for systematic reviews.

show abstract

Eysenbach, Tuische and Diepgen’s Evaluation of Web Searching for Identifying Unpublished Studies for Systematic Reviews: An Innovative Study Which is Still Relevant Today

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

An alternative screening approach for Google Search identifies an accurate and manageable number of results for a systematic review (case study)

An alternative screening approach for Google Search identifies an accurate and manageable number of results for a systematic review (case study)

Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review

The phronesis of expert searchers on using forward citation searching and web searching to search for studies for systematic reviews: A hermeneutic phenomenological analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About