Embedded Files
Appraisal of: "Hirt, J., Nordhausen, T., Fuerst, T., Ewald, H., & Appenzeller-Herzog, C. (2024). Guidance on terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching: the TARCiS statement. BMJ, 385:e078384."
Appraisal of: "Hirt, J., Nordhausen, T., Fuerst, T., Ewald, H., & Appenzeller-Herzog, C. (2024). Guidance on terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching: the TARCiS statement. BMJ, 385:e078384."
Reviewer(s):
Juilet Brown
Alan Lovell
MS Copilot
Full Reference:
Hirt, J., Nordhausen, T., Fuerst, T., Ewald, H., & Appenzeller-Herzog, C. (2024). Guidance on terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching: the TARCiS statement. BMJ, 385:e078384. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078384.
Short description:
This study presents the TARCiS statement, a consensus-based guidance document developed to standardize terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching in systematic literature reviews. The authors conducted a four-round Delphi study involving 27 international experts, informed by a prior scoping review of 47 methodological studies. The final TARCiS statement includes 10 recommendations and 4 research priorities.
The recommendations cover when and how to use citation searching (e.g., backward, forward, co-cited, co-citing), how to report it transparently, and when iterative searching or deduplication is appropriate. The guidance emphasizes the importance of citation searching for topics that are difficult to search using traditional keyword methods and provides a checklist to support implementation. The study aims to improve reproducibility and efficiency in systematic reviews and encourages further research to refine citation searching practices.
Limitations stated by the author(s):
Delphi panelists were primarily from Australia, Europe, and North America, limiting global representation.
Few participants were from non-English-speaking countries.
Most evidence and participants were health-focused, potentially limiting applicability to other disciplines.
Some recommendations were based on limited empirical studies and require further validation.
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
The Delphi process, while robust, may reflect consensus rather than empirical validation.
The guidance may not fully address discipline-specific nuances outside health sciences.
The checklist and terminology may require adaptation for use in non-systematic or exploratory reviews.
The study does not evaluate the effectiveness of TARCiS implementation in practice.
Study Type:
Consensus-Based Guidance Development (Delphi Study and Scoping Review)
Related Chapters:
Tags:
Citation searching
Page updated
Report abuse