首页> 外文OA文献 >A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review
【2h】

A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review

机译:补充检索技术的实证研究结果与审查方法手册中的建议的比较:方法评论

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background The purpose and contribution of supplementary search methods in systematic reviews is increasingly acknowledged. Numerous studies have demonstrated their potential in identifying studies or study data that would have been missed by bibliographic database searching alone. What is less certain is how supplementary search methods actually work, how they are applied, and the consequent advantages, disadvantages and resource implications of each search method. The aim of this study is to compare current practice in using supplementary search methods with methodological guidance. Methods Four methodological handbooks in informing systematic review practice in the UK were read and audited to establish current methodological guidance. Studies evaluating the use of supplementary search methods were identified by searching five bibliographic databases. Studies were included if they (1) reported practical application of a supplementary search method (descriptive) or (2) examined the utility of a supplementary search method (analytical) or (3) identified/explored factors that impact on the utility of a supplementary method, when applied in practice. Results Thirty-five studies were included in this review in addition to the four methodological handbooks. Studies were published between 1989 and 2016, and dates of publication of the handbooks ranged from 1994 to 2014. Five supplementary search methods were reviewed: contacting study authors, citation chasing, handsearching, searching trial registers and web searching. Conclusions There is reasonable consistency between recommended best practice (handbooks) and current practice (methodological studies) as it relates to the application of supplementary search methods. The methodological studies provide useful information on the effectiveness of the supplementary search methods, often seeking to evaluate aspects of the method to improve effectiveness or efficiency. In this way, the studies advance the understanding of the supplementary search methods. Further research is required, however, so that a rational choice can be made about which supplementary search strategies should be used, and when.
机译:背景技术补充搜索方法在系统评价中的目的和贡献日益得到认可。大量研究表明,它们具有识别书目数据库搜索遗漏的研究或研究数据的潜力。还不能确定的是,补充搜索方法实际上是如何工作的,如何应用的以及每种搜索方法的相应优点,缺点和资源含义。这项研究的目的是将当前使用补充搜索方法的实践与方法论指导进行比较。方法阅读并审核四本方法论手册,以指导英国的系统评价实践,以建立当前的方法论指南。通过搜索五个书目数据库,鉴定了评估使用补充搜索方法的研究。包括以下方面的研究:(1)报告了补充搜索方法的实际应用(描述性)或(2)检查了补充搜索方法的实用性(分析性)或(3)已确定/探讨了影响补充搜索方法实用性的因素实际应用中的方法。结果除四本方法手册外,本评价还包括35项研究。研究于1989年至2016年之间出版,手册的出版日期为1994年至2014年。审查了五种补充检索方法:联系研究作者,引文追踪,人工搜索,搜索试验注册簿和网络搜索。结论建议的最佳实践(手册)与当前实践(方法学研究)之间存在合理的一致性,因为这与补充搜索方法的应用有关。方法学研究提供了有关补充搜索方法有效性的有用信息,经常试图评估该方法的各个方面以提高有效性或效率。这样,研究促进了对补充搜索方法的理解。但是,需要进行进一步的研究,以便可以对应该使用哪种补充搜索策略以及何时使用做出合理选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号