The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of the peer review of literature search strategies prepared in support of rapid reviews. Methods A sample of 200 CADTH rapid reviews was selected. For each rapid review meeting the inclusion criteria, the pre–peer‐reviewed and corresponding post–peer‐reviewed search strategies were run, and the search results were compared. Bibliographic records retrieved solely by the post–peer‐reviewed search strategy and included in the rapid review report were identified as representing “included studies.” The publication type of each included study was determined, and the attributes of the corresponding record were analyzed to determine the reason for its retrieval by the post–peer‐reviewed search. Results The peer review of search strategies resulted in the retrieval of one or more additional records for 75% of the searches investigated, but only a small proportion of these records (4%) represented included studies. The main publication types of the included studies were nonrandomized studies (60%) and narrative reviews (20%). The principal changes to search strategies that resulted in the retrieval of additional included studies were the inclusion of more keywords or subject headings or a change in the way concepts were combined. Conclusions The peer review of literature search strategies aids in the retrieval of relevant records particularly those representing nonrandomized studies. The scrutiny of keywords, subject headings, and the relation between search concepts are key components of the peer review process.

A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care

“…The “Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome” (PICO) and the “Population, Exposure, Comparator and Outcome” (PECO) checklists help focus the search or evidence within clinical investigations and trials, and a substitution of terms provides the “Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, and Evaluation” (SPICE) guide when a social context to the search is required . The “Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies” (PRESS) emphasise the comprehensiveness of a search by attending to MeSH terms and search filters; although with difficulty when terms and filters are poorly developed or misleading, as for reviews of qualitative and observational studies . Comprehensiveness and reproducibility are considered essential search objectives for reducing bias and enhancing confidence in search results, although they may be impractical objectives for most review methods beyond the rigorous controls of a meta‐analysis .…”

“…Strategies" (PRESS) emphasise the comprehensiveness of a search by attending to MeSH terms and search filters; 74,75 although with difficulty when terms and filters are poorly developed or misleading, [19][20][21] as for reviews of qualitative and observational studies. 52,76 Comprehensiveness and reproducibility are considered essential search objectives for reducing bias and enhancing confidence in search results, although they may be impractical objectives for most review methods beyond the rigorous controls of a meta-analysis.…”

State of the art, state of the science?

“…Collaborations span institutions and the academic‐commercial divide . Academic review organizations (eg, ScHARR, PenTag, and YHEC) and health technology agencies (eg, CADTH) and networks (such as Cochrane , and the Medical Library Association collaboration) continue to play a critical part. Interest in sources and in indexing for retrieval persists through the decades.…”

“…Efficiencies are claimed for search strategy construction, randomized controlled trial (RCT) screening, and for searching for protocols, and all three authorial teams provide empirical evidence to support their claims. Such efficiencies must be accompanied by robust quality assurance procedures; for one of which, peer review of search strategies, we now have important supplemental evidence of benefit …”

Innovation in information retrieval methods for evidence synthesis studies

“…In assessing the quality of the information retrieval process, Spry et al focus on the peer review of literature search strategies and evaluate how peer review impacts on the number and type of studies that might go on to be included in a rapid review.…”