Neilson 2021

Appraisal of: Neilson CJ. Adoption of peer review of literature search strategies in knowledge synthesis from 2009 to 2018: an overview. Health Info Libr J 2021 Sep;38(3):160-171.

Reviewer(s):
Carol Lefebvre
Steven Duffy

Full Reference:
Neilson CJ. Adoption of peer review of literature search strategies in knowledge synthesis from 2009 to 2018: an overview. Health Info Libr J 2021 Sep;38(3):160-171.

Short description:

This study provides an overview of the reporting of the adoption of peer review of search strategies, in particular those studies using the PRESS Evidence-Based Checklist, by providing a snapshot from knowledge synthesis articles published between 2009 and 2018, i.e. the first 10 years following the initial publication of the PRESS guidance. The study reports on the characteristics of these articles and the journals where they are published.

Studies were identified using Scopus by forward citation searching for the PRESS guidance documents and additional keyword searches relevant to peer review of search strategies.

415 articles, published in 169 different journals, met the inclusion criteria. There was an overall upward trend in the number of protocols and completed reviews that reported incorporating peer review for their literature searches over the time period examined, reaching a maximum of 131 articles in 2018.

Of the 415 included articles, 312 articles (75.2%) reported that an information professional was in some way involved in designing the search strategy.

Individual PRESS reviewers were acknowledged by name in 124 articles (29.9%). Of the 124 articles that acknowledged a peer reviewer, 111 (89.5%) also listed an information professional among the authors or otherwise indicated that an information professional was involved in search strategy development.

Of the author affiliations listed for first and last authors, 562 (67%) were from Canada.

Despite thousands of systematic reviews being published every year, only 415 articles were identified which reported using peer review as part of the search process. The extent to which this is due to under-reporting remains unclear.

Limitations stated by the author(s):

The sample cannot be considered to be comprehensive.

Only one bibliographic database (Scopus) was used to identify and collect citations for potentially relevant publications.

The study is limited to articles published between 2009 and 2018. This provides a snapshot of the first 10 years after PRESS guidance was first published but does not provide insight into the use of PRESS more recently.

The study was limited to English language publications.

The study relied on information documented in individual publications and the database records describing them. Articles that neither cited formal guidance on peer review of the search strategy, nor made mention of it in the abstract, would not have been present in the sample. The study is, therefore, likely to reflect under-reporting of peer review and the use of PRESS.

Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):

None observed.

Study Type:

Overview

Related Chapters:

Tags:

• Peer reviewing