Booth 2008

Appraisal of: "Booth, A. (2008). Unpacking your literature search toolbox: on search styles and tactics. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 25(4), 313–317 ."

Reviewer(s): 

Deirdre Beecher

Alan Lovell

MS Copilot

Full Reference:
Booth, A. (2008). Unpacking your literature search toolbox: on search styles and tactics. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 25(4), 313–317. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00825. 

Short description: 

This article by Andrew Booth explores the conceptual underpinnings of literature search strategies used by health information professionals. Booth critiques the tendency of librarians to engage in pragmatic searching without a deeper understanding of the theoretical models that inform search behavior. He introduces and categorizes various search styles and tactics, including Building Blocks, Citation Pearl Growing, Successive Fractions, Most Specific Facet First, Lowest Postings Facet First, Drop a Concept, Berry Picking, and Interactive Scanning. These models are contextualized along a continuum from knowledge support (e.g., systematic reviews) to decision support (e.g., clinical question answering). 

Booth emphasizes the importance of matching search tactics to the information need and argues for a codified evidence base to guide practice. He concludes that while some techniques are embedded in professional lore, others remain underutilized. The article advocates for a more strategic and evidence-informed approach to literature searching, aiming to improve both the effectiveness and professionalism of search practices.

Limitations stated by the author(s): 

• The evidence base for some search tactics, such as Citation Pearl Growing, is limited. 

• There is a lack of a consistently derived and accumulated evidence base to determine which techniques are most appropriate under specific circumstances.  

• Some techniques are intuitive or part of professional lore but are not systematically applied or evaluated. 

Limitations stated by the reviewer(s): 

• The article is descriptive and conceptual rather than empirical; it does not present original research or data to validate the effectiveness of the search tactics discussed.  

• While the taxonomy of search styles is useful, the paper lacks comparative analysis or metrics to assess their relative performance or applicability in different contexts.  

• The discussion assumes a level of familiarity with search practices that may not be accessible to novice readers. 

Study Type: 

Conceptual/Descriptive Review (Expert Commentary)  

Related Chapters: 

Clinical effectiveness

Tags: 

• Search practices