Manual search approaches used by systematic reviewers in dermatology

Matt Vassar, Paul Atakpo, Melissa J. Kash

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Manual searches are supplemental approaches to database searches to identify additional primary studies for systematic reviews. The authors argue that these manual approaches, in particular hand-searching and perusing reference lists, are often considered the same yet lead to different outcomes. Methods: We conducted a PubMed search for systematic reviews in the top 10 dermatology journals (January 2006–January 2016). After screening, the final sample comprised 292 reviews. Statements related to manual searches were extracted from each review and categorized by the primary and secondary authors. Each statement was categorized as either “Search of Reference List,” “Hand Search,” “Both,” or “Unclear.” Results: Of the 292 systematic reviews included in our sample, 143 reviews (48.97%) did not report a hand-search or scan of reference lists. One-hundred thirty-six reviews (46.58%) reported searches of reference lists, while 4 reviews (1.37%) reported systematic hand-searches. Three reviews (1.03%) reported use of both hand-searches and scanning reference lists. Six reviews (2.05%) were classified as unclear due to vague wording. Conclusions: Authors of systematic reviews published in dermatology journals in our study sample scanned reference lists more frequently than they conducted hand-searches, possibly contributing to biased search outcomes. We encourage systematic reviewers to routinely practice hand-searching in order to minimize bias.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)302-304
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of the Medical Library Association
Volume104
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Oct 2016

Fingerprint

Dermatology
PubMed
Databases
trend

Keywords

  • Bias (epidemiology)
  • Bibliographic
  • Bibliometrics
  • Clinical studies as topic
  • Data collection
  • Databases
  • Information storage and retrieval
  • Periodicals as topic
  • Publishing
  • Review literature as topic

Cite this

@article{2e4ee4ad1b614a92bcfe517c3dfb574c,
title = "Manual search approaches used by systematic reviewers in dermatology",
abstract = "Objective: Manual searches are supplemental approaches to database searches to identify additional primary studies for systematic reviews. The authors argue that these manual approaches, in particular hand-searching and perusing reference lists, are often considered the same yet lead to different outcomes. Methods: We conducted a PubMed search for systematic reviews in the top 10 dermatology journals (January 2006–January 2016). After screening, the final sample comprised 292 reviews. Statements related to manual searches were extracted from each review and categorized by the primary and secondary authors. Each statement was categorized as either “Search of Reference List,” “Hand Search,” “Both,” or “Unclear.” Results: Of the 292 systematic reviews included in our sample, 143 reviews (48.97{\%}) did not report a hand-search or scan of reference lists. One-hundred thirty-six reviews (46.58{\%}) reported searches of reference lists, while 4 reviews (1.37{\%}) reported systematic hand-searches. Three reviews (1.03{\%}) reported use of both hand-searches and scanning reference lists. Six reviews (2.05{\%}) were classified as unclear due to vague wording. Conclusions: Authors of systematic reviews published in dermatology journals in our study sample scanned reference lists more frequently than they conducted hand-searches, possibly contributing to biased search outcomes. We encourage systematic reviewers to routinely practice hand-searching in order to minimize bias.",
keywords = "Bias (epidemiology), Bibliographic, Bibliometrics, Clinical studies as topic, Data collection, Databases, Information storage and retrieval, Periodicals as topic, Publishing, Review literature as topic",
author = "Matt Vassar and Paul Atakpo and Kash, {Melissa J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.009",
language = "English",
volume = "104",
pages = "302--304",
journal = "Journal of the Medical Library Association",
issn = "1536-5050",
publisher = "Medical Library Association",
number = "4",

}

Manual search approaches used by systematic reviewers in dermatology. / Vassar, Matt; Atakpo, Paul; Kash, Melissa J.

In: Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 104, No. 4, 01.10.2016, p. 302-304.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Manual search approaches used by systematic reviewers in dermatology

AU - Vassar, Matt

AU - Atakpo, Paul

AU - Kash, Melissa J.

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - Objective: Manual searches are supplemental approaches to database searches to identify additional primary studies for systematic reviews. The authors argue that these manual approaches, in particular hand-searching and perusing reference lists, are often considered the same yet lead to different outcomes. Methods: We conducted a PubMed search for systematic reviews in the top 10 dermatology journals (January 2006–January 2016). After screening, the final sample comprised 292 reviews. Statements related to manual searches were extracted from each review and categorized by the primary and secondary authors. Each statement was categorized as either “Search of Reference List,” “Hand Search,” “Both,” or “Unclear.” Results: Of the 292 systematic reviews included in our sample, 143 reviews (48.97%) did not report a hand-search or scan of reference lists. One-hundred thirty-six reviews (46.58%) reported searches of reference lists, while 4 reviews (1.37%) reported systematic hand-searches. Three reviews (1.03%) reported use of both hand-searches and scanning reference lists. Six reviews (2.05%) were classified as unclear due to vague wording. Conclusions: Authors of systematic reviews published in dermatology journals in our study sample scanned reference lists more frequently than they conducted hand-searches, possibly contributing to biased search outcomes. We encourage systematic reviewers to routinely practice hand-searching in order to minimize bias.

AB - Objective: Manual searches are supplemental approaches to database searches to identify additional primary studies for systematic reviews. The authors argue that these manual approaches, in particular hand-searching and perusing reference lists, are often considered the same yet lead to different outcomes. Methods: We conducted a PubMed search for systematic reviews in the top 10 dermatology journals (January 2006–January 2016). After screening, the final sample comprised 292 reviews. Statements related to manual searches were extracted from each review and categorized by the primary and secondary authors. Each statement was categorized as either “Search of Reference List,” “Hand Search,” “Both,” or “Unclear.” Results: Of the 292 systematic reviews included in our sample, 143 reviews (48.97%) did not report a hand-search or scan of reference lists. One-hundred thirty-six reviews (46.58%) reported searches of reference lists, while 4 reviews (1.37%) reported systematic hand-searches. Three reviews (1.03%) reported use of both hand-searches and scanning reference lists. Six reviews (2.05%) were classified as unclear due to vague wording. Conclusions: Authors of systematic reviews published in dermatology journals in our study sample scanned reference lists more frequently than they conducted hand-searches, possibly contributing to biased search outcomes. We encourage systematic reviewers to routinely practice hand-searching in order to minimize bias.

KW - Bias (epidemiology)

KW - Bibliographic

KW - Bibliometrics

KW - Clinical studies as topic

KW - Data collection

KW - Databases

KW - Information storage and retrieval

KW - Periodicals as topic

KW - Publishing

KW - Review literature as topic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994759842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.009

DO - 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.009

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27822152

AN - SCOPUS:84994759842

VL - 104

SP - 302

EP - 304

JO - Journal of the Medical Library Association

JF - Journal of the Medical Library Association

SN - 1536-5050

IS - 4

ER -