Adams 2016

Appraisal of: Adams J, Hillier-Brown FC, Moore HJ, Lake AA, Araujo-Soares V, White M,

Summerbell C. Searching and synthesizing ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public

health: critical reflections on three case studies. Systematic Reviews (2016) 5:164

Reviewer(s): 

Carolyn Spry

Melissa Walter

Full Reference: 

Adams J, Hillier-Brown FC, Moore HJ, Lake AA, Araujo-Soares V, White M, et al. Searching and synthesising 'grey literature' and 'grey information' in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev. 2016; 5:164.

Short description: 

The aim of this report was to provide insights on collecting and synthesizing grey literature and grey information to inform future researchers. Various methods of locating, appraising and using grey literature and grey information were compared across three case studies related to public health services or interventions previously conducted by the authors of this paper. Search methods included searching trial databases, grey literature databases, websites of relevant organizations and a popular internet search engine. Requests for information were also made to individuals working in the areas of interest. The authors concluded that many standard systematic review methods for searching, appraising, managing and synthesizing the evidence base can be adapted for use with grey literature and information.

Limitations stated by the author(s): 

Methods for locating information were not equally effective across the three reviews. If searching efficiency is due to different approaches to searching, a comparison of search efficiency for these three searches may not be that informative. The lack of a gold standard with which to validate grey literature search approaches makes it difficult to ensure that all relevant information has been found. Data management tools are not well-developed for tracking sources of grey literature and information. Some aspects of the search were difficult to capture such as the number of people who saw and responded to requests for information. Of the three reviews, one is a service and two are interventions. Some types of information (Review 1 service throughput) tend to be better documented than outcomes of interventions (Reviews 2 and 3). The three case studies were treated as evidence syntheses but Reviews 2 and 3 could be seen as primary research if key informants were considered to be research participants.

Limitations stated by the reviewer(s): 

The time frame for searching was vastly different for the three 2006, 2011, 2016. As a result, sources of grey literature and information had changed over the course of the decade. Differing approaches to data collection may cloud a comparison of the three reviews. Reviews 2 and 3 followed SR guidance more closely by contacting authors of papers to collect missing data. For Review 1, the reviewers assumed the info was missing if not provided in a written report.

Study Type: 

Review

Related Chapters: 

Tags: 

• Grey literature