Embedded Files
Appraisal of: Briscoe S. A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2018 Mar;9(1):89-99.
Appraisal of: Briscoe S. A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2018 Mar;9(1):89-99.
Reviewer(s):
Melissa Severn
Monika Mierzwinski-Urban
Full Reference:
Briscoe S. A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2018 Mar;9(1):89-99.
Short description:
The main objective of this study was to assess whether web searching was reported in sufficient detail to be transparent and reproducible in a 6‐month sample of Cochrane systematic reviews. The study also assesses whether guidance on the reporting of web searching in the Searching for Studies chapter of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and in the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews was sufficient to achieve the aforestated aims of transparency and reproducibility.
A total of 423 Cochrane reviews with an online publication date in the 6‐month period August 2016 to January 2017 were identified. Web searching was not reported in sufficient detail to be transparent and reproducible in the majority of Cochrane reviews in the sample. Details about the search terms and search limits, or a descriptive account of how a resource was searched, were reported in a minority of reviews that reported searching using search engines (21%) and websites (13%).
Limitations stated by the author(s):
Classifying websites as dedicated literature resources, as defined in the exclusion criteria, proved to be difficult. It became apparent that there are not 2 binary types of website (ie, dedicated literature resource or not dedicated literature resource), but a continuum. On several occasions, a judgement was made to include or exclude a website that might not be repeated by a second reviewer. However, it is unlikely that the results would be significantly different if different decisions were made about whether to include or exclude difficult to classify websites. It was easier to define and identify search engines, and this part of the study would be easier for a second reviewer to reproduce
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
Study Type:
Single study
Related Chapters:
Tags:
Grey literature
Search engines
Documenting
Google
Google Scholar
Page updated
Report abuse