Web searching for systematic reviews: a case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme

BMC Research Notes

Simon Briscoe¹ 

[1] Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement (ESMI), University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke’s Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK

关键词: Reporting standards;    World Wide Web;    Web searching;    Literature searching;    Systematic reviews;   

Others  :  1177889
DOI  :  10.1186/s13104-015-1079-y

 received in 2014-11-04, accepted in 2015-03-20,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Identifying 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.

Methods

Systematic 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.

Results

554 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.

Conclusions

Most 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.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Briscoe; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gehanno JF, Rollin L, Darmoni S: Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013, 13:7. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Boeker M, Vach W, Motschall E: Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013, 13:131. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Giustini D, Boulos MN: Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Online J Public Health Informat 2013, 5(2):214.
• [4]Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York; 2008.
• [5]Farace DJ, Frantzen J: Third International Conference on Grey Literature: perspectives on the design and transfer of scientific and technical information: 13–14 November 1997. Luxembourg, TransAtlantic; 1997.
• [6]Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al.: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009, 339:b2700.
• [7]Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
• [8]Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
• [9]Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
• [10]National Institute for Health Research [http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta/policy-customers] Accessed 3rd November 2014.
• [11]The CRD database [http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/] Accessed 3rd November 2014.
• [12]The NIHR journals library [http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/] Accessed 3rd November 2014.
• [13]Chowdhury GG, Chowdhury S: Organizing Information from the Shelf to the Web. Facet Publishing, London; 2007.
• [14]Pandor A, Eggington S, Paisley S, Tappenden P, Sutcliffe P: The clinical and cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin and capecitabine for the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England) 2006, 10(41):iii-iv.
• [15]Rodgers M, Nixon J, Hempel S, Aho T, Kelly J, Neal D, et al.: Diagnostic tests and algorithms used in the investigation of haematuria: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England) 2006, 10(18):iii-iv.
• [16]Carr SM, Lhussier M, Forster N, Geddes L, Deane K, Pennington M, Visram S, White M, Michie S, Donaldson C, et al.: An evidence synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research on component intervention techniques, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity and acceptability of different versions of health-related lifestyle advisor role in improving health. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England) 2011, 15(9):iii-iv.
• [17]McKenna C, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Hawkins N, Claxton K, Light K, et al.: Enhanced external counterpulsation for the treatment of stable angina and heart failure: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England) 2009, 13(24):iii-iv.
• [18]Sullivan D. Google still world’s most popular search engine by far, but share of unique searchers dips slightly [http://searchengineland.com/google-worlds-most-popular-search-engine-148089] Accessed 3rd November 2014.
• [19]Blakeman K: Finding research information on the web: how to make the most of Google and other free search tools. Sci Prog 2013, 96(1):61-84.
• [20]Pariser E: The filter bubble: what the internet is hiding from you. Viking, London; 2011.
• [21]Relevo R: Searching the grey literature: where to look and what to expect. In AHRQ Annual Conference. 18–21 September 2011. AHRQ, Bethesda, Maryland; 2011.
• [22]Briscoe S. Web searching for health technology assessment reports. In: InterTASC ISSG workshop: a discussion on the use of information in UK health technology assessments. 9 July 2014. University of Exeter, UK; 2014.