Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources
Abstract Objective To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. Results Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the d...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ 2005-11, Vol.331 (7524), p.1064-1065 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1065 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7524 |
| container_start_page | 1064 |
| container_title | BMJ |
| container_volume | 331 |
| creator | Greenhalgh, Trisha Peacock, Richard |
| description | Abstract Objective To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. Results Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by “snowballing” (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. Conclusion Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1283190</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68762378</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b780t-1b35e3b381165e08a8b86f6ed88914ff8fc2d96f925962404d7929982e80023a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkluL1EAQhYMo7rDuLxCkUfQts31J33wQdFgvsOrLquBL0-lUOz3msnZnxp1_b8cZdlRwFQKB1HeKOienKO4TPCeEidO6W82ZEkzMuWaVIHOhbhUzUglVcsXY7WKGNdelIkwdFScprTDGlEmlBb9bHBFBGWaEzop45j24MWygh5SQ7RsE3gcXoHdbNHiUwEa3RB2My6FJKPQobdMInR2DQxE2Ab6niXNDd9nCFcpfmqyFp8iumzBOo8sYOhu3KA3r6CDdK-542yY42b-Piw8vzy4Wr8vz96_eLJ6fl7VUeCxJzTiwmilCBAesrKqV8AIapTSpvFfe0UYLrynXgla4aqSmWisKarJq2XHxbLf3cl130Djox2hbs7_GDDaY3yd9WJovw8YQqhjROC94sl8Qh29rSKPpQnLQtraHYZ2MUFJMmf4T5JJiotUEPvoDXOVM-pyCYfnfZY7xiXr4N4riKnsjlb5pFZFSCkYE4ZliO8rFIaUI_to-wWYqkslFMj-LZHZFyq6y6sGvyR00-9pk4PEesMnZ1kfbu5AOXPbB8pO5cseFXJmr67mNX42QTHLz7uPCfNYv3hLySZqLzM93_HTV_116ehAcArhB8QMn8_vx</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1777631615</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Greenhalgh, Trisha ; Peacock, Richard</creator><creatorcontrib>Greenhalgh, Trisha ; Peacock, Richard</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objective To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. Results Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by “snowballing” (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. Conclusion Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies.</description><edition>International edition</edition><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8138</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8146</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0959-535X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-5833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16230312</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BMJOAE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Audits ; Biological and medical sciences ; Citation indexes ; Data Collection - methods ; Data Collection - standards ; Effectiveness ; Efficiency ; Evidence-based medicine ; General aspects ; Identification ; Information in Practice ; Information management ; Information Storage and Retrieval - methods ; Information Storage and Retrieval - standards ; Medical research ; Medical sciences ; Methods ; Research methodology ; Review Literature as Topic ; Science ; Search strategies ; Serendipity ; Studies ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>BMJ, 2005-11, Vol.331 (7524), p.1064-1065</ispartof><rights>2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright: 2005 (c) 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright BMJ Publishing Group Nov 5, 2005</rights><rights>2005 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2005, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b780t-1b35e3b381165e08a8b86f6ed88914ff8fc2d96f925962404d7929982e80023a3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27903,27904,30978,30979</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17233233$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16230312$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Greenhalgh, Trisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peacock, Richard</creatorcontrib><title>Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources</title><title>BMJ</title><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><description>Abstract Objective To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. Results Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by “snowballing” (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. Conclusion Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies.</description><subject>Audits</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Citation indexes</subject><subject>Data Collection - methods</subject><subject>Data Collection - standards</subject><subject>Effectiveness</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Identification</subject><subject>Information in Practice</subject><subject>Information management</subject><subject>Information Storage and Retrieval - methods</subject><subject>Information Storage and Retrieval - standards</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Review Literature as Topic</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Search strategies</subject><subject>Serendipity</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>0959-8146</issn><issn>0959-535X</issn><issn>1468-5833</issn><issn>1756-1833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkluL1EAQhYMo7rDuLxCkUfQts31J33wQdFgvsOrLquBL0-lUOz3msnZnxp1_b8cZdlRwFQKB1HeKOienKO4TPCeEidO6W82ZEkzMuWaVIHOhbhUzUglVcsXY7WKGNdelIkwdFScprTDGlEmlBb9bHBFBGWaEzop45j24MWygh5SQ7RsE3gcXoHdbNHiUwEa3RB2My6FJKPQobdMInR2DQxE2Ab6niXNDd9nCFcpfmqyFp8iumzBOo8sYOhu3KA3r6CDdK-542yY42b-Piw8vzy4Wr8vz96_eLJ6fl7VUeCxJzTiwmilCBAesrKqV8AIapTSpvFfe0UYLrynXgla4aqSmWisKarJq2XHxbLf3cl130Djox2hbs7_GDDaY3yd9WJovw8YQqhjROC94sl8Qh29rSKPpQnLQtraHYZ2MUFJMmf4T5JJiotUEPvoDXOVM-pyCYfnfZY7xiXr4N4riKnsjlb5pFZFSCkYE4ZliO8rFIaUI_to-wWYqkslFMj-LZHZFyq6y6sGvyR00-9pk4PEesMnZ1kfbu5AOXPbB8pO5cseFXJmr67mNX42QTHLz7uPCfNYv3hLySZqLzM93_HTV_116ehAcArhB8QMn8_vx</recordid><startdate>20051105</startdate><enddate>20051105</enddate><creator>Greenhalgh, Trisha</creator><creator>Peacock, Richard</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>British Medical Association</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20051105</creationdate><title>Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources</title><author>Greenhalgh, Trisha ; Peacock, Richard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b780t-1b35e3b381165e08a8b86f6ed88914ff8fc2d96f925962404d7929982e80023a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Audits</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Citation indexes</topic><topic>Data Collection - methods</topic><topic>Data Collection - standards</topic><topic>Effectiveness</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Identification</topic><topic>Information in Practice</topic><topic>Information management</topic><topic>Information Storage and Retrieval - methods</topic><topic>Information Storage and Retrieval - standards</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Review Literature as Topic</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Search strategies</topic><topic>Serendipity</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Greenhalgh, Trisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peacock, Richard</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Greenhalgh, Trisha</au><au>Peacock, Richard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources</atitle><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle><stitle>BMJ</stitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><date>2005-11-05</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>331</volume><issue>7524</issue><spage>1064</spage><epage>1065</epage><pages>1064-1065</pages><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>0959-8146</issn><issn>0959-535X</issn><eissn>1468-5833</eissn><eissn>1756-1833</eissn><coden>BMJOAE</coden><abstract>Abstract Objective To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. Results Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by “snowballing” (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. Conclusion Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><pmid>16230312</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68</doi><tpages>2</tpages><edition>International edition</edition><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0959-8138 |
| ispartof | BMJ, 2005-11, Vol.331 (7524), p.1064-1065 |
| issn | 0959-8138 0959-8146 0959-535X 1468-5833 1756-1833 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1283190 |
| source | MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Jstor Complete Legacy; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Audits Biological and medical sciences Citation indexes Data Collection - methods Data Collection - standards Effectiveness Efficiency Evidence-based medicine General aspects Identification Information in Practice Information management Information Storage and Retrieval - methods Information Storage and Retrieval - standards Medical research Medical sciences Methods Research methodology Review Literature as Topic Science Search strategies Serendipity Studies Systematic review |
| title | Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T14%3A44%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effectiveness%20and%20efficiency%20of%20search%20methods%20in%20systematic%20reviews%20of%20complex%20evidence:%20audit%20of%20primary%20sources&rft.jtitle=BMJ&rft.au=Greenhalgh,%20Trisha&rft.date=2005-11-05&rft.volume=331&rft.issue=7524&rft.spage=1064&rft.epage=1065&rft.pages=1064-1065&rft.issn=0959-8138&rft.eissn=1468-5833&rft.coden=BMJOAE&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E68762378%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1777631615&rft_id=info:pmid/16230312&rfr_iscdi=true |