Sampson 2008

Appraisal of: “Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, Cogo E, Moher D. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(8):748-54.”

Reviewer(s):
Dagmara Chojecki

Lisa Tjosvold

Full Reference:
Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, Cogo E, Moher D. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(8):748-54S

Short description:

The aim of this paper was to identify validated search reporting instruments and to compare reported and recommended reporting practices. 11 instruments and 18 different reporting items were identified. The highest number of reporting items used by an instrument was 11. The study found that there was better reporting of electronic databases (998.7%) compared to other elements such as qualifications of the searcher (11.4%).

Limitations stated by the author(s):

None stated.

Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):

No additional limitations detected by the reviewers.

Study Type:

Review

Related Chapters:

Documenting and reporting the search process

Tags:

• Documenting

• Guidance document