Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements.
information retrieval
information science
literature searching
overview
search strategies
Journal
Health information and libraries journal
ISSN: 1471-1842
Titre abrégé: Health Info Libr J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100970070
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
08
08
2018
accepted:
09
07
2019
entrez:
22
9
2019
pubmed:
22
9
2019
medline:
24
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The last decade has witnessed increased recognition of the value of literature reviews for advancing understanding and decision making. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the range of methodological approaches and types of review. However, there remains uncertainty over definitions and search requirements beyond those for the 'traditional' systematic review. This study aims to characterise health related reviews by type and to provide recommendations on appropriate methods of information retrieval based on the available guidance. A list of review types was generated from published typologies and categorised into 'families' based on their common features. Guidance on information retrieval for each review type was identified by searching pubmed, medline and Google Scholar, supplemented by scrutinising websites of review producing organisations. Forty-eight review types were identified and categorised into seven families. Published guidance reveals increasing specification of methods for information retrieval; however, much of it remains generic with many review types lacking explicit requirements for the identification of evidence. Defining review types and utilising appropriate search methods remain challenging. By familiarising themselves with a range of review methodologies and associated search methods, information specialists will be better equipped to select suitable approaches for future projects.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The last decade has witnessed increased recognition of the value of literature reviews for advancing understanding and decision making. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the range of methodological approaches and types of review. However, there remains uncertainty over definitions and search requirements beyond those for the 'traditional' systematic review. This study aims to characterise health related reviews by type and to provide recommendations on appropriate methods of information retrieval based on the available guidance.
METHODS
METHODS
A list of review types was generated from published typologies and categorised into 'families' based on their common features. Guidance on information retrieval for each review type was identified by searching pubmed, medline and Google Scholar, supplemented by scrutinising websites of review producing organisations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Forty-eight review types were identified and categorised into seven families. Published guidance reveals increasing specification of methods for information retrieval; however, much of it remains generic with many review types lacking explicit requirements for the identification of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Defining review types and utilising appropriate search methods remain challenging. By familiarising themselves with a range of review methodologies and associated search methods, information specialists will be better equipped to select suitable approaches for future projects.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
202-222Informations de copyright
© 2019 Health Libraries Group.
Références
Arnold, R., & Fletcher, D. (2012). A research synthesis and taxonomic classification of the organizational stressors encountered by sport performers. Journal of Sport Exercise Psychology, 34, 397-429. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.3.397
Aveyard, H., & Bradbury-Jones, C. (2019). An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: Findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19, 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0751-7
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
Barroso, J., Gollop, C. J., Sandelowski, M., Meynell, J., Pearce, P. F., & Collins, L. J. (2003). The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25, 153-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945902250034
Barr-Walker, J. (2017). Evidence-based information needs of public health workers: A systematized review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105, 69-79. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.109
Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13, 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024320
Beale, S., Duffy, S., Glanville, J., Lefebvre, C., Wright, D., McCool, R., Varley, D., Boachie, C., Fraser, C., Harbour, J., & Smith, L. (2014). Choosing and using methodological search filters: Searchers’ views. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 31, 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12062
Berg, R. C., & Nanavati, J. (2016). Realist review: Current practice and future prospects. Journal of Research Practice, 12, 1.
Booth, A. (2006). “Brimful of STARLITE”: Toward standards for reporting literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94, 421.
Booth, A. (2010). How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 26, 431-435. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462310000966
Booth, A. (2015). EVIDENT Guidance for reviewing the evidence: A compendium of methodological literature and websites. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842
Booth, A. (2016). Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews, 5, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
Booth, A., & Carroll, C. (2015). Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: Is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Information & Libraries Journal, 32, 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12108
Booth, A., Harris, J., Croot, E., Springett, J., Campbell, F., & Wilkins, E. (2013). Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: Case study (CLUSTER). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 118. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-118
Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G. J., Mozygemba, K., Refolo, P., Sacchini, D., Tummers, M., & Rehfuess, E. (2016a). Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. https://www.integrate-hta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Guidance-on-choosing-qualitative-evidence-synthesis-methods-for-use-in-HTA-of-complex-interventions.pdf
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016b). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: Sage.
Booth, A., Wright, J., & Briscoe, S. (2018). Scoping and searching to support realist approaches doing realist research. London: Sage.
Briscoe, S. (2015). Web searching for systematic reviews: A case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme. BMC Research Notes, 16, 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1079-y
Briscoe, S. (2017). A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods, 9, 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1275
Briscoe, S., Cooper, C., Glanville, J., & Lefebvre, C. (2017). The loss of the NHS EED and DARE databases and the effect on evidence synthesis and evaluation. Research Synthesis Methods, 8, 256-257.
Brunton, V. J., Stansfield, C., Caird, J., & Thomas, J. (2017). Finding relevant studies. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage.
Byrne, J. A. (2016). Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2
Campbell, R., Pound, P., Morgan, M., Daker-White, G., Britten, N., Pill, R., Yardley, L., Pope, C., & Donovan, J. (2011). Evaluating meta-ethnography: Systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technology Assessment, 15, 1-164. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15430
Carroll, C., Booth, A., Leaviss, J., & Rick, J. (2013). “Best fit” framework synthesis: Refining the method. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-37
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009). CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf
Chatterley, T., & Dennett, L. (2012). Utilisation of search filters in systematic reviews of prognosis questions. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 29, 309-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12004
Clowes, M. (2017). Using visualisation in scoping the literature for a prognostic HTA. Paper presented at the HTAi 2017 Annual Meeting, Rome, Italy.
Cook, C. N., Nichols, S. J., Webb, J. A., Fuller, R. A., & Richards, R. M. (2017). Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: A guide for decision makers and scientists. Biological Conservation, 213, 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.004
Cooper, C., Booth, A., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2017a). A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: A methodological review. Systematic Reviews, 28, 234. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0625-1
Cooper, C., Lovell, R., Husk, K., Booth, A., & Garside, R. (2017b). Supplementary search methods were more effective and offered better value than bibliographic database searching: A case study from public health and environmental enhancement. Research Synthesis Methods, 9, 195-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1286
COSMIN. (n.d.) Guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments. Retrieved from https://www.cosmin.nl/tools/guideline-conducting-systematic-review-outcome-measures/?portfolioCats=19
Crandell, J. L., Voils, C. I., & Sandelowski, M. (2012). Bayesian approaches to the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research findings. In Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach (pp. 137-159). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119959847.ch7
de, Vet, H. C. W., Eisinga, A., Riphagen, I. I., Aertgeerts, B., & Pewsner, D. (2008). Chapter 7: Searching for studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 0.4 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Retrieved from https://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.sdt/files/public/uploads/Chapter07-Searching-%28September-2008%29.pdf
Denison, H. J., Dodds, R. M., Ntani, G., Cooper, R., Cooper, C., Sayer, A. A., & Baird, J. (2013). How to get started with a systematic review in epidemiology: An introductory guide for early career researchers. Archives of Public Health, 71, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/0778-7367-71-21
Dequen, P., Sutton, A. J., Scott, D. A., & Abrams, K. R. (2014). Searching for indirect evidence and extending the network of studies for network meta-analysis: Case study in venous thromboembolic events prevention following elective total knee replacement surgery. Value in Health, 17, 416-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.02.013
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10, 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581960501000110
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., … Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 35. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Retrieved from https://www.nccmt.ca/capacity-development/rapid-review-guidebook
Duncan, V., et al. (2017). Working with a librarian on a realist review: The RAMESES Project. Retrieved from http://www.ramesesproject.org/media/RAMESES_II_Working_with_a_librarian.pdf
Edmunds Otter, M. L., Wright, J. M., & King, N. V. (2017). Developing the librarians’ role in supporting grant applications and reducing waste in research: Outcomes from a literature review and survey in the NIHR Research Design Service. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23, 258-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1330219
El Sherif, R., Pluye, P., Gore, G., Granikov, V., & Hong, Q. N. (2016). Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104, 47-51. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.007
Elliott, J., Sim, I., Thomas, J., Owens, N., Dooley, G., Riis, J., … Mavergames, C. (2014a). # CochraneTech: Technology and the future of systematic reviews. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ED000091. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000091
Elliott, J. H., Turner, T., Clavisi, O., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P., Mavergames, C., & Gruen, R. L. (2014b). Living systematic reviews: An emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Medicine, 11, e1001603.
European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). (2017). Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness. EUnetHTA methodological guidance version 1.2. https://www.eunethta.eu/process-of-information-retrieval-for-systematic-reviews-and-health-technology-assessments-on-clinical-effectiveness
Foster, M. J. (2018). From the office of a systematic review consultant. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 11, 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586717749905
France, E., & the eMERGe Project Team and Advisors. (2018). Introducing the first bespoke Meta-ethnography Reporting Guidance (eMERGe). In IIQM 24th Annual Qualitative Health Research Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 27.10.2018-29.10.2018.
France, E. F., Ring, N., Thomas, R., Noyes, J., Maxwell, M., & Jepson, R. (2014). A methodological systematic review of what's wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-119
Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science, 5, 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
Gardener, A. C., Ewing, G., Kuhn, I., & Farquhar, M. (2018). Support needs of patients with COPD: A systematic literature search and narrative review. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 13, 1021. https://doi.org/10.2147/copd.s155622
Gasparyan, A. Y., Ayvazyan, L., Blackmore, H., & Kitas, G. D. (2011). Writing a narrative biomedical review: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatology International, 31, 1409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3
Geersing, G., Bouwmeester, W., Zuithoff, P., Spijker, R., Leeflang, M. & Moons, K. (2012). Search filters for finding prognostic and diagnostic prediction studies in Medline to enhance systematic reviews. PLoS ONE, 7, e32844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032844
J. Glanville, C. Lefebvre, & K. Wright (Eds.). (2008). ISSG search filter resource. York, UK: The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group; [updated 2019 May 7; cited 30 May 2019]. Retrieved from: https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home
Golder, S., & Wright, K. (2016). Searching evidence. In Umbrella reviews (pp. 95-106). Chester: Springer International Publishing.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Greenhalgh, T., & Shaw, S. (2017). Understanding heart failure; explaining telehealth-a hermeneutic systematic review. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 17, 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-017-0594-2
Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., et al. (2013-2018). The RAMESES project. Retrieved from http://www.ramesesproject.org/Standards_and_Training_materials.php
Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2011). Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hannes, K., & Macaitis, K. (2012). A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: Update on a review of published papers. Qualitative Research, 12, 402-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111432992
Harris, M. R. (2005). The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: A case study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93, 81.
Harris, J. L., Booth, A., Cargo, M., Hannes, K., Hardend, A., Flemming, K., … Noyes, J. (2017). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance series-paper 6: Methods for question formulation, searching and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 97, 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.023
Hawkins, N., Scott, D. A., & Woods, B. (2009). How far do you go? Efficient searching for indirect evidence. Medical Decision Making, 29, 273-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x08330120
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0[updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
Hoaglin, D. C., Hawkins, N., Jansen, J. P., Scott, D. A., Itzler, R., Cappelleri, J. C., … Barrett, A. (2011). Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 2. Value in Health, 14, 429-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011
HTAi IRG. (2011). Summarized research in information retrieval for HTA (SuRE Info). Retrieved from http://vortal.htai.org/index.php?q=sure-info
James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 2016(5), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6
Kable, A. K., Pich, J., & Maslin-Prothero, S. E. (2012). A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: A 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Education Today, 32, 878-886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.022
Kastner, M., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Straus, S. E., & Tricco, A. C. (2016). Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.022
Kastner, M., Tricco, A. C., Soobiah, C., Lillie, E., Perrier, L., Horsley, T., … Straus, S. (2012). What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.022
Kaunelis, D., & Glanville, J. (2017). Cost and economic evaluation. Summarized Research in Information Retrieval for HTA (SuRE Info). Retrieved from http://vortal.htai.org/?q=node/336
Kavanagh, J., Campbell, F., Harden, A., & Thomas, J. (2012). Mixed methods synthesis: A worked example. In K. Hannes & C. Lockwood (Ed.), Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach (pp. 113-136). Chicheste: John Wiley & Sons.
Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
Koffel, J. B. (2015). Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: A cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS ONE, 10, e0125931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
Kugley, S., Wade, A., Thomas, J., Mahood, Q., Jørgensen, A. M., Hammerstrøm, K., & Sathe, N. (2016). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell. Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://campbellcollaboration.org/library/searching-for-studies-information-retrieval-guide-campbell-reviews.html
Leeflang, M. M., Deeks, J. J., Takwoingi, Y., & Macaskill, P. (2013). Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Systematic Reviews, 2, 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-82
Lefebvre, C., Glanville, J., Briscoe, S., Littlewood, A., Marshall, C., Metzendorf, M. I., Noel-Storr, A., Rader, T., Shokraneh, F., Thomas, J., & Wieland, L. S. (2019). Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. Draft version (29 January 2019) for inclusion. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews for interventions. London: Cochrane.
Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E., & Glanville, J. (2011). Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from www.handbook.cochrane.org
Living Systematic Review Network. (2017). Cochrane living systematic reviews: Interim guidance for pilots (Version 0.3, 21 April 2017). Cochrane, London, UK. Retrieved from: http://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Transform/LSR Interim guidance_v0.3_20170421.pdf
Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13, 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062
Lockwood, C., Porrit, K., Munn, Z., Rittenmeyer, L., Salmond, S., Bjerrum, M.,…Stannard, D. (2017). Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Retrieved from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
Mack, I., Penders, J., Cook, J., Dugmore, J., Mazurak, N., & Enck, P. (2018). Is the impact of starvation on the gut microbiota specific or unspecific to anorexia nervosa? A narrative review based on a systematic literature search. Current Neuropharmacology, 16, 1131-1149. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159X16666180118101354
Major, C. H., & Savin-Baden, M. (2010). Chapter 3 Designing the synthesis. In An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the information explosion in social science research. Milton: Routledge.
McArthur, A., Klugárová, J., Yan, H., & Florescu, S. (2015). Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13, 188-195. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000060
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
Moher, D., Stewart, L., & Shekelle, P. (2015). All in the family: Systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Systematic Reviews, 4, 183. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7
S. Morton, A. Berg, L. Levit, & J. Eden (Eds.). (2011). Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. XXX: National Academies Press.
Mulrow, C. D. (1987). The medical review article: State of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine, 106, 485-488.
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technological appraisal (PMG 9). London: NICE. Retrieved from https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword
Niederstadt, C., & Droste, S. (2010). Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: The need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 26, 450-457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462310001066
Noyes, J., Booth, A., Moore, G., Flemming, K., Tunçalp, Ö., & Shakibazadeh, E. (2019). Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: Clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Global Health, 4(Suppl. 1), e000893.
Oliver, S. (2015). Advantages of concurrent preparation and reporting of systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 108, 108-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076815575231
O'Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., Miwa, M., & Ananiadou, S. (2015). Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: A systematic review of current approaches. Systematic Reviews, 4, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-5
Paisley, S., Seva, J., Stevenson, M., Archer, R., Preston, L., Chilchott, J., & Thornhill, M. (2016). Identifying potential early biomarkers of acute myocardial infarction in the biomedical literature: A comparison of text mining and manual sifting techniques. Poster presented at the ISPOR 19th Annual European Congress, Vienna, Austria. Abstract retrieved from: http://scharr.dept.shef.ac.uk/ikt/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/IDENTIFYING-POTENTIAL-EARLY-BIOMARKERS-OF-ACUTE-MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION.pdf
Paré, G., Trudel, M. C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52, 183-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). The retrieval and assessment of primary research. In Methods in nursing research: Meta-study of qualitative health research (pp. 33-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985017
Perryman, C. L. (2016). Mapping studies. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104, 79-82. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.014
Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Brunton, G., Hunt, H., & Estcourt, L. (2017). Selecting and implementing overview methods: Implications from five exemplar overviews. Systematic Reviews, 6, 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3
Preston, L., Carroll, C., Gardois, P., Paisley, S., & Kaltenthaler, E. (2015). Improving search efficiency for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: An exploratory study to assess the viability of limiting to MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference checking. Systematic Reviews, 4, 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0074-7
Relevo, R., & Balshem, H. (2011) Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC021-EF. Available at https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/methods-guidance-finding-evidence_methods.pdf
Rethlefsen, M., Ayala, A. P., Kirtley, S., Koffel, J., & Waffenschmidt, S. (2019). PRISMA-S Draft 1. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/7ncys
Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Lefebvre, C., Moher, D., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2008). PRESS: Peer review of electronic search strategies. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Retrieved from https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/press
Saul, J. E., Willis, C. D., Bitz, J., & Best, A. (2013). A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: Rapid realist review. Implementation Science, 8, 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-103
Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17, 544-555. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258609
Shemilt, I., Simon, A., Hollands, G. J., Marteau, T. M., Ogilvie, D., O'Mara-Eves, A., … Thomas, J. (2014). Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: Use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1093
Slutsky, J., Atkins, D., Chang, S., & Sharp, B. A. C. (2010). AHRQ series paper 1: Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 481-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.009
Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-15
Spencer, A. J., & Eldredge, J. D. (2018). Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: A scoping review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106, 46-56. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82
Stansfield, C., Dickson, K., & Bangpan, M. (2016). Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: How can we be systematic? Systematic Reviews, 5, 191. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9
Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11, 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & de Vet, H. C. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1115-1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5
The Cochrane Collaboration. (2019). Cochrane review. In The Cochrane Glossary. Retrieved from https://community.cochrane.org/glossary#letter-C
The Pubmed Health Team. (2015). Systematic review methods filter at PubMed. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/researchers/pubmed-systematic-review-methods-filter/
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Kastner, M., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., … Straus, S. E. (2016a). Knowledge synthesis methods for generating or refining theory: A scoping review reveals that little guidance is available. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.021
Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, 215(13), 224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., … Straus, S. E. (2016b). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
Tricco, A. C., Soobiah, C., Antony, J., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., Lillie, E., … Welch, V. (2016c). A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030
Tricco, A. C., Tetzlaff, J., & Moher, D. (2011). The art and science of knowledge synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007
Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Ghassemi, M., Nincic, V., Lillie, E., Page, M. J., … Strausa, S. E. (2018). Same family, different species: Methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 96, 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.014
Tsafnat, G., Glasziou, P., Choong, M. K., Dunn, A., Galgani, F., & Coiera, E. (2014). Systematic review automation technologies. Systematic Reviews, 3, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-74
UK Civil Service. (2014). Rapid evidence assessment toolkit. National Archive. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402162847/http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/networks/gsr/resources-and-guidance/rapid-evidence-assessment/planning-a-rea
Voils, C., Hassselblad, V., Crandell, J., Chang, Y., Lee, E., & Sandelowski, M. (2009). A Bayesian method for the synthesis of evidence from qualitative and quantitative reports: The example of antiretroviral medication adherence. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 14, 226-233. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008186
Weed, M. (2005). “Meta Interpretation”: A method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6, 37. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.1.508
Whittemore, R., Chao, A., Jang, M., Minges, K. E., & Park, C. (2014). Methods for knowledge synthesis: An overview. Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care, 43, 453-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.05.014
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 546-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (p. 38). ACM. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.709.9164&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013a). RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Medicine, 11, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-20
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013b). RAMESES publication standards: Realist syntheses. BMC Medicine, 11, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-21
Wright, J., & Walwyn, R. (2016). Literature search methods for an overview of reviews (‘umbrella’ reviews or ‘review of reviews’). CILIP Health Libraries Group Conference; 15-16th Sept 2016; Scarborough, UK. Retrieved from https://www.cilip.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/judy_wright.pdf