Abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate and validate the time of completion and results of a new method of searching for systematic reviews, the exhaustive search method (ESM), using a pragmatic comparison.MethodsSingle‐line search strategies were prepared in a text document. Term completeness was ensured with a novel optimization technique. Macros in MS Word converted the syntaxes between databases and interfaces almost automatically. We compared search characteristics, such as number of search terms and databases, and outcomes, such as number of included and retrieved references and precision, from ESM searches and other Dutch academic hospitals identified by searching PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2014 and 2016. We compared time to perform the ESM with a secondary comparator of recorded search times from published literature and contact with authors to acquire unpublished data.ResultsWe identified 73 published Erasmus MC systematic reviews and 258 published by other Dutch academic hospitals meeting our criteria. We pooled search time data from 204 other systematic reviews. The ESM searches differed by using 2 times more databases, retrieving 44% more references, including 20% more studies in the final systematic review, but the time needed for the search was 8% of that of the control group. Similarities between methods include precision and the number of search terms.ConclusionsThe evaluated similarities and differences suggest that the ESM is a highly efficient way to locate more references meeting the specified selection criteria in systematic reviews than traditional search methods. Further prospective research is required.
Highlights
Systematic reviews are often challenged by retrieval bias, referring to failure in locating pertinent studies to include
We found a total of 1271 systematic reviews where the affiliation of the first author was a Dutch academic hospitals (DAHs) other than Erasmus MC
In 141 of these reviews, we identified that the search strategy was created by an Patient/Population Neoplasms Cardiovascular diseases Wounds and injuries Urogenital diseases Mental disorders Nutritional diseases Musculoskeletal diseases Otorhinolaryngology Signs and symptoms Skin diseases Intervention Surgical procedures Chemicals and drugs Diagnostic imaging Physical therapy Domain Therapy Prognosis* Diagnosis Management Epidemiology* Etiology*
Summary
Systematic reviews are often challenged by retrieval bias, referring to failure in locating pertinent studies to include. Comprehensive search methods are used to locate as many reports of studies as possible. Developing a comprehensive search for a systematic review can require large efforts.[1,2,3] Estimates suggest that database searching may take an average of 17.7 hours.[4] For each database used, it has been estimated that it may take an expert searcher 2 hours to translate a search adequately.[5]. Librarian and information specialist‐authored search strategies are of higher quality. In practice, there is still variance between librarians and information specialists in comprehensiveness and overall search quality.[7]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
