Abstract
BackgroundIdentifying literature for a systematic review requires searching a variety of sources. The main sources are typically bibliographic databases. Web searching using search engines and websites may be used to identify grey literature. Searches should be reported in order to ensure transparency and reproducibility.This study assesses the reporting of web searching for systematic reviews carried out by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (UK). The study also makes recommendations about reporting web searching for systematic reviews in order to achieve a reasonable level of transparency and reproducibility.MethodsSystematic reviews were identified by searching the HTA database via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) website. Systematic reviews were included in the study if they made reference to searching the web using either search engines or websites. A data-extraction checklist was designed to record how web searching was reported. The checklist recorded whether a systematic review reported: the names of search engines or websites; the dates they were searched; the search terms; the results of the searches; and, in the case of websites, whether a URL was reported.Results554 HTA reports published between January 2004 and December 2013 were identified. 300 of these reports are systematic reviews, of which 108 report web searching using either a search engine or a website. Overall, the systematic reviews assessed in the study exhibit a low standard of web search reporting. In the majority of cases, the only details reported are the names of websites (n = 54) or search engines (n = 33). A small minority (n = 6) exhibit the highest standard of web search reporting.ConclusionsMost web search reporting in systematic reviews carried out on the UK HTA programme is not detailed enough to ensure transparency and reproducibility. Transparency of reporting could be improved by adhering to a reporting standard such as the standard detailed in the CRD systematic reviews methods guidance. Reproducibility is harder to achieve due to the frequency of changes to websites and search engines.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1079-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
Identifying literature for a systematic review requires searching a variety of sources
554 Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports published between January 2004 and December 2013 were identified. 300 of these reports are systematic reviews, of which 108 report web searching using either a search engine or a website and meet the additional selection criteria
Adherence to the recommendations outlined in this study would improve the transparency of web search reporting
Summary
Identifying literature for a systematic review requires searching a variety of sources. Web searching using search engines and websites may be used to identify grey literature. The study makes recommendations about reporting web searching for systematic reviews in order to achieve a reasonable level of transparency and reproducibility. There is research suggesting that bibliographic databases can be adequately replaced by the web search engine Google Scholar, [1] the results are contested by information professionals [2,3]. Web searching for a systematic review should be reported to the extent that the search strategy and results are transparent [4].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
