↓ Skip to main content

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 1,734)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
185 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
705 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Cooper, Andrew Booth, Jo Varley-Campbell, Nicky Britten, Ruth Garside

Abstract

Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies. A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching. Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process. Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 185 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 705 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 705 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 139 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 80 11%
Student > Bachelor 77 11%
Researcher 46 7%
Librarian 41 6%
Other 162 23%
Unknown 160 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 116 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 106 15%
Social Sciences 58 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 38 5%
Computer Science 36 5%
Other 161 23%
Unknown 190 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 127. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2021.
All research outputs
#212,138
of 19,218,475 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#20
of 1,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,939
of 289,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,218,475 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,951 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them