Saleh 2014

Appraisal of: Saleh, A. A.,Ratajeski, M. A.,Bertolet, M. (2014). Grey Literature Searching for Health Sciences Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Study of Time Spent and Resources Utilized Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 9(3), 28-50

Reviewer(s): 

Melissa Severn

Monika Mierzwinski-Urban

Full Reference: 

Saleh, A. A.,Ratajeski, M. A.,Bertolet, M. (2014). Grey Literature Searching for Health Sciences Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Study of Time Spent and Resources Utilized Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 9(3), 28-50

Short description: 

The authors aimed to explore the time taken and the resources selected for grey literature searches for systematic reviews. Any relationship between searcher and systematic review characteristics and time to search or number of resources selected for grey literature searches was also investigated. A survey was electronically distributed to searchers embarking on a new systematic review.

The average time taken to conduct the grey literature search was approximately 7 hours, with range of 20 minutes to 58 hours, with 50% of the participants reporting spending less than 1.5 hours. An average of four grey literature resources were searched per review, with a range of one to 14 resources and with 50% of the participants reporting using one or two grey literature resources. More time was spent searching for grey and non-grey literature if the systematic review was grant funded.

The most frequently searched grey literature resources were the Cochrane Library (including the HTA database and the NHS EED (discontinued)), the World health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (discontinued), ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Specialized Registers, CRD databases, Handsearching, Proquest Dissertations, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index.

Limitations stated by the author(s): 

We utilized convenience sampling, recruiting mainly through known listservs. Of the respondents who started the survey, only 21% completed the survey. The reasons for this non-completion are not known, although it is possible that the second part of the survey was viewed as too onerous or that the planned systematic review never progressed to the searching phase. There was limited power in the analysis due to the small sample size, so results should be viewed as suggestive rather than predictive. Also, because the small sample size consisted of mainly library professionals, results may not be generalizable to all those undertaking a systematic review search. Part two of this survey study utilized prospective methodology, asking participants to record information about their systematic review searching as they worked. Perhaps if a retrospective methodology was used more potential participants would have met our inclusion criteria, resulting in a larger sample size. However, it was the feeling of the authors that a prospective survey would allow the least biased capture of time spent searching. A further limitation regarding methodology of the study was the subjective categorization of resources into grey literature or non-grey literature by the authors. The time for searching that we obtained through this study may be underreported due to the following: five survey participants reported that a portion of the searching was completed by another individual but only reported the name of the resource, not time spent searching. Two survey participants did not report the time spent searching each resource individually; they only reported the total time as whole which was spent searching all resources for the review.

Limitations stated by the reviewer(s): 

Some conclusions out of date since the article was published in 2014 and many of the most common grey literature resources searched in the study sample have been discontinued.

Study Type: 

Single study

Related Chapters: 

Tags: 

• Grey literature

• Systematic reviews