Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews

Abstract Objective This article reports on literature surveillance methods to identify new evidence eligible for updating systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting Five surveillance search approaches are tested in the context of identifying studies that would signal major or invalidating new evid...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical epidemiology 2008-08, Vol.61 (8), p.755-762
Main Authors: Sampson, Margaret, Shojania, Kaveh G, McGowan, Jessie, Daniel, Raymond, Rader, Tamara, Iansavichene, Alla E, Ji, Jun, Ansari, Mohammed T, Moher, David
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Biological and medical sciences
Cohort Studies
Delivery of Health Care
Epidemiologic methods
Epidemiology
Feasibility Studies
General aspects
Humans
Information storage and retrieval
Information Storage and Retrieval - standards
Internal Medicine
Intervention
Librarians
Medical research
Medical sciences
MEDLINE
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Methods
Miscellaneous
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
PubMed
Pubmed-related article
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Review Literature as Topic
Studies
Surveillance search strategies
Updating Systematic reviews
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Objective This article reports on literature surveillance methods to identify new evidence eligible for updating systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting Five surveillance search approaches are tested in the context of identifying studies that would signal major or invalidating new evidence for existing systematic reviews of health care interventions. Recall for each search approach was assessed as proportion of a composite yield of relevant studies across all search approaches that were identified by that approach. Screening burden was the number of studies that would need to be reviewed to identify the evidence that would necessitate updating. Results Searches were tested in a cohort of 77 systematic reviews. No one method yielded consistently high recall of relevant new evidence, so combinations of the strategies were examined. A search algorithm based on PubMed's related article search in combination with a subject searching using clinical queries was the most effective combination, retrieving all relevant new records in 68 cases. Screening burden was a median of 71 new records per review (inter-quartile range: 42–161). Conclusion Surveillance for emerging evidence that signals the need to update systematic reviews is feasible using a combination of subject searching and searching based on the PubMed's related article function.
ISSN:0895-4356
1878-5921
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.003