Author: Brian S McGowan, PhD

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Effective literature searching is particularly important for clinical practice guideline development. Sophisticated searching and filtering mechanisms are needed to help ensure that all relevant research is reviewed.
PURPOSE:
To assess the methods used for the selection of evidence for guideline development by evidence-based guideline development organizations.
METHODS:
A semistructured questionnaire assessing the databases, search filters and evaluation methods used for literature retrieval was distributed to eight major organizations involved in evidence-based guideline development.
RESULTS:
All of the organizations used search filters as part of guideline development. The medline database was the primary source accessed for literature retrieval. The OVID or SilverPlatter interfaces were used in preference to the freely accessed PubMed interface. The Cochrane Library, embase, cinahl and psycinfo databases were also frequently used by the organizations. All organizations reported the intention to improve and validate their filters for finding literature specifically relevant for guidelines.
DISCUSSION:
In the first international survey of its kind, eight major guideline development organizations indicated a strong interest in identifying, improving and standardizing search filters to improve guideline development. It is to be hoped that this will result in the standardization of, and open access to, search filters, an improvement in literature searching outcomes and greater collaboration among guideline development organizations.

via Standardization of search methods for gui… [Health Info Libr J. 2008] – PubMed – NCBI.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The researchers involved in this study work at Exeter Health library and at the Complementary Medicine Unit, Peninsula School of Medicine and Dentistry (PCMD). Within this collaborative environment it is possible to access the electronic resources of three institutions. This includes access to AMED and other databases using different interfaces.
OBJECTIVES:
The aim of this study was to investigate whether searching different interfaces to the AMED allied health and complementary medicine database produced the same results when using identical search terms.
METHODS:
The following Internet-based AMED interfaces were searched: DIALOG DataStar; EBSCOhost and OVID SP_UI01.00.02. Search results from all three databases were saved in an endnote database to facilitate analysis. A checklist was also compiled comparing interface features.
RESULTS:
In our initial search, DIALOG returned 29 hits, OVID 14 and Ebsco 8. If we assume that DIALOG returned 100% of potential hits, OVID initially returned only 48% of hits and EBSCOhost only 28%. In our search, a researcher using the Ebsco interface to carry out a simple search on AMED would miss over 70% of possible search hits. Subsequent EBSCOhost searches on different subjects failed to find between 21 and 86% of the hits retrieved using the same keywords via DIALOG DataStar. In two cases, the simple EBSCOhost search failed to find any of the results found via DIALOG DataStar.
CONCLUSIONS:
Depending on the interface, the number of hits retrieved from the same database with the same simple search can vary dramatically. Some simple searches fail to retrieve a substantial percentage of citations. This may result in an uninformed literature review, research funding application or treatment intervention. In addition to ensuring that keywords, spelling and medical subject headings (MeSH) accurately reflect the nature of the search, database users should include wildcards and truncation and adapt their search strategy substantially to retrieve the maximum number of appropriate citations possible. Librarians should be aware of these differences when making purchasing decisions, carrying out literature searches and planning user education.

via When is a search not a search? A comparis… [Health Info Libr J. 2009] – PubMed – NCBI.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Most NHS library services routinely offer both mediated searches and information skills training sessions to their users. We analyse the impact of these two services on the amount of literature searching demonstrated by users of hospital- based library services in the north-west of England.
METHODS:
Data for (1) mediated literature searches, (2) number of library users attending information skills training sessions, (3) amount of library staff time devoted to information skills training, and (4) number of Athens-authenticated log-ins to databases were obtained from statistical returns for 2007, and analysed for significant correlations.
RESULTS:
There was evidence of quite strong correlations between the two measures of training activity and the number of mediated literature searches performed by library staff. There was weaker evidence of correlation between training activity and total literature searching activity.
DISCUSSION:
Attending training sessions may make some library users aware of the difficulty of complex literature searches and actually reduce their confidence to perform their own complex searches independently. The relationships between information skills training, mediated literature searches, and independent literature searching activity remain complex.

via The impact of information skills training… [Health Info Libr J. 2010] – PubMed – NCBI.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Medical practitioners have unmet information needs. Health care research dissemination suffers from both “supply” and “demand” problems. One possible solution is to develop methodologic search filters (“hedges”) to improve the retrieval of clinically relevant and scientifically sound study reports from bibliographic databases. To develop and test such filters a hand search of the literature was required to determine directly which articles should be retrieved, and which not retrieved.
OBJECTIVE:
To determine the extent to which 6 research associates can agree on the classification of articles according to explicit research criteria when hand searching the literature.
DESIGN:
Blinded, inter-rater reliability study.
SETTING:
Health Information Research Unit, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Participants: 6 research associates with extensive training and experience in research methods for health care research. Main outcome measure: Inter-rater reliability measured using the kappa statistic for multiple raters.
RESULTS:
After one year of intensive calibration exercises research staff were able to attain a level of agreement at least 80% greater than that expected by chance (kappa statistic) for all classes of articles.
CONCLUSION:
With extensive training multiple raters are able to attain a high level of agreement when classifying articles in a hand search of the literature.

via Enhancing retrieval of best evide… [Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001] – PubMed – NCBI.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
Errors in the electronic search strategy of a systematic review may undermine the integrity of the evidence base used in the review. We studied the frequency and types of errors in reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:
Data sources were MEDLINE searches from reviews in the Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2002. To be eligible, systematic reviews must have been of randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, reported included and excluded studies, and used one or more sections of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Highly Sensitive Search Strategy. MEDLINE search strategies not reported in enough detail to be assessed or that were duplicates of a search strategy already assessed for the study were excluded. Two librarians assessed eligibility and scored the eligible electronic search strategies for 11 possible errors. Dual review with consensus was used.
RESULTS:
Of 105 MEDLINE search strategies examined, 63 were assessed; 31 were excluded because they were inadequately reported, and 11 were duplicates of assessed search strategies. Most (90.5%) of the assessed search strategies contained > or =1 errors (median 2, interquartile range [IQR] 1.0-3.0). Errors that could potentially lower recall of relevant studies were found in 82.5% (median 1, IQR 1.0-2.0) and inconsequential errors (to the evidence base) were found in 60.3% (median 1, IQR 0.0-1.0) of the search strategies. The most common search errors were missed MeSH terms (44.4%), unwarranted explosion of MeSH terms (38.1%), and irrelevant MeSH or free text terms (28.6%). Missed spelling variants, combining MeSH and free text terms in the same line, and failure to tailor the search strategy for other databases occurred with equal frequency (20.6%). Logical operator error occurred in 19.0% of searches.
CONCLUSION:
When the MEDLINE search strategy used in a systematic review is reported in enough detail to allow assessment, errors are commonly revealed. Additional peer review steps are needed to ensure search quality and freedom from errors.

via Errors in search strategies were identified… [J Clin Epidemiol. 2006] – PubMed – NCBI.