scopus.bib

Scopus
EXPORT DATE: 2 March 2019

@ARTICLE{Bui20181477,
author={Bui, K.T.A. and Abdaem, J. and Muccilli, A. and Gore, G.C. and Keezer, M.R.},
title={Improving the quality of systematic reviews of neurological conditions: an assessment of current practice and the development and validation of six new search strategies},
journal={European Journal of Neurology},
year={2018},
volume={25},
number={12},
pages={1477-1485},
doi={10.1111/ene.13758},
note={cited By 0},
url={https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85052799762&doi=10.1111%2fene.13758&partnerID=40&md5=29513eb3541f99a3a25e3d7f9d95905b},
affiliation={Centre de Recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada; Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada; Schulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada},
abstract={Background and purpose: Our aim was to study the quality of the literature search strategies used in recent systematic reviews and to develop and assess the diagnostic accuracy of six new search strategies (i.e. hedges). Methods: Six neurological conditions were studied: migraine, stroke, dementia, epileptic seizures, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the search strategies used in systematic reviews published in 2015–2016. Complex hedges pertaining to the six conditions for use in Ovid MEDLINE were developed. Their diagnostic accuracy was compared to simple, single-term keyword searches. Results: Almost 60% of quality criteria for the overall literature search strategy used in 182 systematic reviews were not respected. Over 30% of search strategies relied on a single keyword to identify the neurological condition. The sensitivities of our complex hedges amongst 10 311 articles were between 83% and 95%, significantly higher than the simple keyword searches (as low as 48%). The specificities were greater than 97%. Conclusions: There is great room for improvement in the search strategies used in systematic reviews of neurological conditions. Complex hedges were developed and validated to improve the accuracy of such searches. It is expected that this will lead to higher quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. © 2018 EAN},
author_keywords={diagnostic accuracy;  hedge;  MEDLINE;  neurology;  search strategy;  systematic review},
keywords={Article;  cerebrovascular accident;  dementia;  diagnostic accuracy;  diagnostic test accuracy study;  human;  migraine;  multiple sclerosis;  neurologic disease;  Parkinson disease;  predictive value;  priority journal;  quality control;  seizure;  systematic review;  systematic review (topic)},
references={Greenland, S., O'Rourke, K., Meta-analysis (2008) Modern Epidemiology, pp. 652-682. , Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds., 3rd edn, Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Green, S., Higgins, J.P.T., Alderson, P., Clarke, M., Mulrow, C.D., Oxman, A.D., Chapter 1: Introduction (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 51 0, , www.cochrane-handbook.org, Higgins JPT, Green S, eds., London, The Cochrane Collaboration, Available from; Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E., Glanville, J., Chapter 6: Searching for studies (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 51 0, , www.cochrane-handbook.org, Higgins JPT, Green S, eds., London, The Cochrane Collaboration, Available from; Campbell, S., What is the difference between a filter and a hedge? (2016) J EAHIL, 12, pp. 4-5; (2016) 2015 Journal Citation Reports®, , Thomson Reuters; Montori, V.M., Wilczynski, N.L., Morgan, D., Haynes, R.B., Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from MEDLINE: analytical survey (2005) BMJ, 330, p. 68; Yaylali, I.E., Alacam, T., Critical assessment of search strategies in systematic reviews in endodontics (2016) J Endod, 42, pp. 854-860; Faggion, C.M., Jr., Critical appraisal of evidence supporting the placement of dental implants in patients with neurodegenerative diseases (2016) Gerodontology, 33, pp. 2-10; Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: a cross-sectional study (2016) PLoS One, 11; Shea, B.J., Grimshaw, J.M., Wells, G.A., Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007) BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, p. 10; Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E., Glanville, J., Chapter 6: Searching for studies (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 51 0, , www.cochrane-handbook.org, Higgins JPT, Green S, eds., The Cochrane Collaboration, London, Available from; McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D.M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., Lefebvre, C., PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement (2016) J Clin Epidemiol, 75, pp. 40-46; Health Information Research Unit: Hedges, , https://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU_Hedges_home.aspx, (accessed 21/06/2016); Hildebrand, A.M., Iansavichus, A.V., Haynes, R.B., High-performance information search filters for acute kidney injury content in PubMed, Ovid Medline and Embase (2014) Nephrol Dial Transplant, 29, pp. 823-832; Bossuyt, P.M., Reitsma, J.B., Bruns, D.E., Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative (2003) BMJ, 326, pp. 41-44; Bossuyt, P.M., Reitsma, J.B., Bruns, D.E., The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration (2003) Ann Intern Med, 138, pp. W1-W12; Delgado-Rodriguez, M., Llorca, J., Bias (2004) J Epidemiol Community Health, 58, pp. 635-641; Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G., The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data (1977) Biometrics, 33, pp. 159-174; Griner, P.F., Mayewski, R.J., Mushlin, A.I., Greenland, P., Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures (1981) Ann Int Med, 94, p. 565; Brown, L.D., Cai, T.T., DasGupta, A., Interval estimation for a binomial proportion (2001) Stat Sci, 16, pp. 101-133; Trajman, A., Luiz, R.R., McNemar chi2 test revisited: comparing sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic examinations (2008) Scand J Clin Lab Invest, 68, pp. 77-80; Hawass, N.E., Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients (1997) Br J Radiol, 70, pp. 360-366; Faggion, C.M., Jr., Wu, Y.C., Tu, Y.K., Wasiak, J., Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery (2016) Br J Radiol, 89, p. 20150878; Rethlefsen, M.L., Farrell, A.M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L.C., Brigham, T.J., Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews (2015) J Clin Epidemiol, 68, pp. 617-626},
correspondence_address1={Keezer, M.R.; Centre de Recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM)Canada; эл. почта: mark.keezer@umontreal.ca},
publisher={Blackwell Publishing Ltd},
issn={13515101},
coden={EJNEF},
pubmed_id={30035838},
language={English},
abbrev_source_title={Eur. J. Neurol.},
document_type={Article},
source={Scopus},
}

@ARTICLE{Riegelman201822,
author={Riegelman, A. and Kocher, M.},
title={A model for developing and implementing a systematic review service for disciplines outside of the health sciences},
journal={Reference and User Services Quarterly},
year={2018},
volume={58},
number={1},
pages={22-27},
note={cited By 0},
url={https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85055700346&partnerID=40&md5=f70b1eeca578eae743a8983815144004},
affiliation={Institute of Child Development, University ofMinnesota, Georgia; University of Minnesota, Georgia},
references={Grant, M.J., Booth, A., A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies (2009) Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), pp. 91-108. , https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x; Koffel, J.B., Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: A cross-sectional survey of recent authors (2015) PLOS ONE, 10 (5). , https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931; Gore, G.C., Jones, J., Systematic reviews and librarians: A primer for managers (2015) Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 10 (1). , https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v10i1.3343; Lefeb-Vre, C., Manheimer, E., Glanville, J., Searching for studies (2008) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, pp. 95-150. , https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch6, edited by Julian Higgins and Sally Green Chichester, UK: Wiley; Producing a ReV IEW (2018) The Campbell Collaboration, , http://archive.campbellcollaboration.org/systematic_reviews/categoryPrinterPage.shtml, accessed February 28; Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: A cross-sectional study (2016) PLOS ONE, 11 (9). , https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163309; Parker, R.M.N., Neilson, M.J., Lost in translation: Supporting learners to search comprehensively across databases (2015) Journal of The Canadian Health Libraries Association/Journal De L'Association Des Bibliothèques De La Santé Du Canada, 36 (2), pp. 54-58; Mi, M., Leveraging research synthesis for promoting and expanding library services and educational programs (2016) The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42 (2), pp. 151-153; Ludeman, E., Developing a library systematic review service: A case study (2015) Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 34 (2), pp. 173-180; Foster, M.J., Jewell, S.T., (2017) Assembling The Pieces of A Systematic Review: A Guide for Librarians, , eds, Medical Library Association Books Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; Koffel, Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews, , Koffel and Rethlefsen; Editorial policies The New England Journal of Medicine, , http://www.nejm.org/about-nejm/editorial-policies},
publisher={American Library Association},
issn={10949054},
language={English},
abbrev_source_title={Ref. User Serv. Q.},
document_type={Article},
source={Scopus},
}

@ARTICLE{Cooper2018,
author={Cooper, C. and Booth, A. and Varley-Campbell, J. and Britten, N. and Garside, R.},
title={Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: A literature review of guidance and supporting studies},
journal={BMC Medical Research Methodology},
year={2018},
volume={18},
number={1},
doi={10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3},
art_number={85},
note={cited By 3},
url={https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85051415084&doi=10.1186%2fs12874-018-0545-3&partnerID=40&md5=e5f56840456d236de7ef0c4fc79ff0c4},
affiliation={Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom; HEDS, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom; European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter, Medical School, Truro, United Kingdom},
abstract={Background: Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies. Method: A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching. Results: Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process. Conclusions: Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated. © 2018 The Author(s).},
funding_details={National Institute for Health ResearchNational Institute for Health Research, NIHR},
funding_details={National Institute for Health ResearchNational Institute for Health Research, NIHR},
funding_details={Health Technology Assessment ProgrammeHealth Technology Assessment Programme, HTA, 16/54/11},
funding_details={Department of HealthDepartment of Health, DH},
funding_details={Health ResearchHealth Research, HRI},
funding_text 1={This publication forms a part of CC’s PhD. CC’s PhD was funded through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (Project Number 16/54/11). The open access fee for this publication was paid for by Exeter Medical School. RG and NB were partially supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.},
references={Booth, A., Unpacking your literature search toolbox: On search styles and tactics (2008) Health Information & Libraries Journal., 25 (4), pp. 313-317; Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., (2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, , Blackwell Publishing Ltd Oxford; IQWiG Methods Resources. 7 Information Retrieval 2014, , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385787/, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG); Developing NICE Guidelines: The Manual 2014, , https://www.nice.org.uk/media/default/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/developing-nice-guidelines-the-manual.pdf, NICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; Sampson, M., (2008) MJ, Lefebvre C, Moher D, Grimshaw J, , PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies; (2009) Systematic Reviews - CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare, , Centre for Reviews & Dissemination York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; (2016) Eunetha: European Network for Health Technology Assesment Process of Information Retrieval for Systematic Reviews and Health Technology Assessments on Clinical Effectiveness, , http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/default/files/Guideline_Information_Retrieval_V1-1.pdf; Kugley, S.W.A., Thomas, J., Mahood, Q., Jørgensen, A.M.K., Hammerstrøm, K., Sathe, N., (2017) Searching for Studies: A Guide to Information Retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews, , https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library/searching-for-studies-information-retrieval-guide-campbell-reviews.html, Oslo: Campbell Collaboration; Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E., Glanville, J., Chapter 6: Searching for studies (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, , H. JPT S. Green (eds); (2013) Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management.: Environmental Evidence, , http://www.environmentalevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Review-guidelines-version-4.2-final-update.pdf, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence; (2014) Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual, , https://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/ReviewersManual-2014.pdf, The Joanna Briggs Institute 2014th ed: the Joanna Briggs institute; Beverley, C.A., Booth, A., Bath, P.A., The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: A health information case study (2003) Health Inf Libr J, 20 (2), pp. 65-74; Harris, M.R., The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: A case study (2005) Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93 (1), pp. 81-87. , 15685279 545126; Egger, J.B., Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: A cross-sectional survey of recent authors (2015) PLoS One, 10 (5), p. e0125931; Li, L., Tian, J., Tian, H., Moher, D., Liang, F., Jiang, T., Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian (2014) J Clin Epidemiol, 67 (9), pp. 1001-1007. , 24841794; McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Systematic reviews need systematic searchers (2005) J Med Libr Assoc, 93 (1), pp. 74-80. , 15685278 545125; Rethlefsen, M.L., Farrell, A.M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L.C., Brigham, T.J., Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews (2015) J Clin Epidemiol, 68 (6), pp. 617-626. , 25766056; Weller, A.C., Mounting evidence that librarians are essential for comprehensive literature searches for meta-analyses and Cochrane reports (2004) J Med Libr Assoc, 92 (2), pp. 163-164. , 15088073 385293; Swinkels, A., Briddon, J., Hall, J., Two physiotherapists, one librarian and a systematic literature review: Collaboration in action (2006) Health Info Libr J, 23 (4), pp. 248-256. , 17177945; Foster, M., An overview of the role of librarians in systematic reviews: From expert search to project manager (2015) EAHIL, 11 (3), pp. 3-7; Lawson, L., (2004) OPERATING OUTSIDE LIBRARY WALLS; Vassar, M., Yerokhin, V., Sinnett, P.M., Weiher, M., Muckelrath, H., Carr, B., Database selection in systematic reviews: An insight through clinical neurology (2017) Health Inf Libr J, 34 (2), pp. 156-164; Townsend, W.A., Anderson, P.F., Ginier, E.C., Maceachern, M.P., Saylor, K.M., Shipman, B.L., A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews (2017) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 105 (3), pp. 268-275. , 28670216; Cooper, I.D., Crum, J.A., New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: A systematic review, 1990-2012 (2013) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA., 101 (4), pp. 268-277. , 24163598; Crum, J.A., Cooper, I.D., Emerging roles for biomedical librarians: A survey of current practice, challenges, and changes (2013) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA., 101 (4), pp. 278-286. , 24163599; Dudden, R.F., Protzko, S.L., The systematic review team: Contributions of the health sciences librarian (2011) Med Ref Serv Q, 30 (3), pp. 301-315. , 21800987; Golder, S., Loke, Y., McIntosh, H.M., Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects (2008) J Clin Epidemiol, 61 (5), pp. 440-448. , 18394536; Maggio, L.A., Tannery, N.H., Kanter, S.L., Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews (2011) Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 86 (8), pp. 1049-1054; Meert, D., Torabi, N., Costella, J., Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews (2016) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA., 104 (4), pp. 267-277. , 27822147; Morris, M., Boruff, J.T., Gore, G.C., Scoping reviews: Establishing the role of the librarian (2016) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA., 104 (4), pp. 346-354. , 27822163; Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: A cross-sectional study (2016) PLoS One, 11 (9). , e0163309 27669416 5036875; Fehrmann, P., Thomas, J., Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in systematic reviews (2011) Research Synthesis Methods., 2 (1), pp. 15-32. , 26061597; Booth, A., Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review (2016) Systematic Reviews., 5 (1), p. 74. , 27145932 4855695; Egger, M., Juni, P., Bartlett, C., Holenstein, F., Sterne, J., How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study (2003) Health Technology Assessment, 7 (1), pp. 1-76. , (Winchester, England); Tricco, A.C., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Fergusson, D., Cogo, E., Horsley, T., Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: A systematic review (2008) J Clin Epidemiol, 61 (5), pp. 422-434. , 18394534; Booth, A., How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments (2010) Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 26 (4), pp. 431-435. , 20923586; Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., Carroll, C., Booth, A., Wong, R., Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: Consideration of a range of search techniques (2010) Health Inf Libr J, 27 (2), pp. 114-122; Petticrew, M., Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from 'what works' to 'what happens' (2015) Systematic Reviews, 4 (1), p. 36. , 25875303 4384311; Betrán, A.P., Say, L., Gülmezoglu, A.M., Allen, T., Hampson, L., Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: Experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality (2005) BMC Med Res Methodol, p. 5; Felson, D.T., Bias in meta-analytic research (1992) J Clin Epidemiol, 45 (8), pp. 885-892. , 1624971; Franco, A., Malhotra, N., Simonovits, G., Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer (2014) Science, 345 (6203), pp. 1502-1505. , 25170047; Hartling, L., Featherstone, R., Nuspl, M., Shave, K., Dryden, D.M., Vandermeer, B., Grey literature in systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews (2017) BMC Med Res Methodol, 17 (1), p. 64. , 28420349 5395863; Schmucker, C.M., Blümle, A., Schell, L.K., Schwarzer, G., Oeller, P., Cabrera, L., Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research (2017) PLoS One, 12 (4). , e0176210 28441452 5404772; Egger, M., Zellweger-Zahner, T., Schneider, M., Junker, C., Lengeler, C., Antes, G., Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German (1997) Lancet, 350 (9074), pp. 326-329. , (London, England); Moher, D., Pham, B., Lawson, M.L., Klassen, T.P., The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews (2003) Health Technology Assessment, 7 (41), pp. 1-90. , (Winchester, England); Pham, B., Klassen, T.P., Lawson, M.L., Moher, D., Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary (2005) J Clin Epidemiol, 58 (8), pp. 769-776. , 16086467; Mills, E.J., Kanters, S., Thorlund, K., Chaimani, A., Veroniki, A.-A., Ioannidis, J.P.A., The effects of excluding treatments from network meta-analyses: Survey (2013) BMJ: British Medical Journal, p. 347; Hartling, L., Featherstone, R., Nuspl, M., Shave, K., Dryden, D.M., Vandermeer, B., The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study (2016) BMC Med Res Methodol, 16 (1), p. 127. , 27670136 5037618; Van Driel, M.L., De Sutter, A., De Maeseneer, J., Christiaens, T., Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort (2009) J Clin Epidemiol, 62 (8), pp. 838-838e3. , 19128939; Buchberger, B., Krabbe, L., Lux, B., Mattivi, J.T., Evidence mapping for decision making: Feasibility versus accuracy - When to abandon high sensitivity in electronic searches (2016) German Medical Science: GMS E-journal, 14, p. Doc09; Lorenc, T., Pearson, M., Jamal, F., Cooper, C., Garside, R., The role of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence in evaluating interventions: A case study (2012) Research Synthesis Methods, 3 (1), pp. 1-10. , 26061997; Gough, D., Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence (2007) Res Pap Educ, 22 (2), pp. 213-228; Barroso, J., Gollop, C.J., Sandelowski, M., Meynell, J., Pearce, P.F., Collins, L.J., The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies (2003) West J Nurs Res, 25 (2), pp. 153-178. , 12666641; Britten, N., Garside, R., Pope, C., Frost, J., Cooper, C., Asking more of qualitative synthesis: A response to Sally Thorne (2017) Qual Health Res, 27 (9), pp. 1370-1376. , 28682714; Booth, A., Carroll, C., Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: Is it feasible? Is it desirable? (2015) Health Info Libr J, 32 (3), pp. 220-235. , 26095232; Kwon, Y., Powelson, S.E., Wong, H., Ghali, W.A., Conly, J.M., An assessment of the efficacy of searching in biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE in identifying studies for a systematic review on ward closures as an infection control intervention to control outbreaks (2014) Syst Rev., 3, p. 135. , 25387523 4231196; Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Klerings, I., Wagner, G., Titscher, V., Gartlehner, G., Assessing the validity of abbreviated literature searches for rapid reviews: Protocol of a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic study (2016) Systematic Reviews., 5, p. 197. , 27876092 5120483; Wagner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Greimel, J., Ciapponi, A., Gartlehner, G., Trading certainty for speed - How much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: An international survey (2017) BMC Med Res Methodol, 17 (1), p. 121. , 28806999 5557322; Ogilvie, D., Hamilton, V., Egan, M., Petticrew, M., Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: How far should you go? (2005) J Epidemiol Community Health, 59 (9), pp. 804-808. , 16100321 1733146; Royle, P., Milne, R., Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: Rapid versus exhaustive searches (2003) Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 19 (4), pp. 591-603. , 15095765; Pearson, M., Moxham, T., Ashton, K., Effectiveness of search strategies for qualitative research about barriers and facilitators of program delivery (2011) Eval Health Prof, 34 (3), pp. 297-308. , 21224267; Levay, P., Raynor, M., Tuvey, D., (2015) Bibliographic Databases and Various Search Techniques to NICE Public Health Guidance. 2015, 10 (1), p. 19. , The Contributions of MEDLINE; Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Klerings, I., Wagner, G., Heise, T.L., Dobrescu, A.I., Armijo-Olivo, S., Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: A meta-epidemiological study (2018) J Clin Epidemiol, 102, pp. 1-11; Briscoe, S., Cooper, C., Glanville, J., Lefebvre, C., The loss of the NHS EED and DARE databases and the effect on evidence synthesis and evaluation (2017) Res Synth Methods., 8 (3), pp. 256-257. , 28268247; Stansfield, C., O'Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., Text mining for search term development in systematic reviewing: A discussion of some methods and challenges Research Synthesis Methods, , n/a-n/a; Petrova, M., Sutcliffe, P., Fulford, K.W., Dale, J., Search terms and a validated brief search filter to retrieve publications on health-related values in Medline: A word frequency analysis study (2012) Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 19 (3), pp. 479-488. , 21846778; Stansfield, C., Thomas, J., Kavanagh, J., 'Clustering' documents automatically to support scoping reviews of research: A case study (2013) Res Synth Methods, 4 (3), pp. 230-241. , 26053843; Methley, A.M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., Cheraghi-Sohi, S., PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews (2014) BMC Health Serv Res, 14, p. 579. , 25413154 4310146; Andrew, B., Clear and present questions: Formulating questions for evidence based practice (2006) Library Hi Tech, 24 (3), pp. 355-368; Cooke, A., Smith, D., Booth, A., Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis (2012) Qual Health Res, 22 (10), pp. 1435-1443. , 22829486; Whiting, P., Westwood, M., Bojke, L., Palmer, S., Richardson, G., Cooper, J., Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: A systematic review and economic model (2006) Health Technology Assessment, 10 (36), pp. iii-iv. , (Winchester, England) xi-xiii, 1-154; Cooper, C., Levay, P., Lorenc, T., Craig, G.M., A population search filter for hard-to-reach populations increased search efficiency for a systematic review (2014) J Clin Epidemiol, 67 (5), pp. 554-559. , 24698297; Hausner, E., Waffenschmidt, S., Kaiser, T., Simon, M., Routine development of objectively derived search strategies (2012) Systematic Reviews., 1 (1), p. 19. , 22587829 3351720; Hausner, E., Guddat, C., Hermanns, T., Lampert, U., Waffenschmidt, S., Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: An objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one (2016) J Clin Epidemiol, 77, pp. 118-124. , 27256930; Craven, J., Levay, P., Recording database searches for systematic reviews - What is the value of adding a narrative to peer-review checklists? A case study of nice interventional procedures guidance (2011) Evid Based Libr Inf Pract, 6 (4), pp. 72-87; Wright, K., Golder, S., Lewis-Light, K., What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? (2015) Syst Rev, 4, p. 104. , 26227391 4532258; Beckles, Z., Glover, S., Ashe, J., Stockton, S., Boynton, J., Lai, R., Searching CINAHL did not add value to clinical questions posed in NICE guidelines (2013) J Clin Epidemiol, 66 (9), pp. 1051-1057. , 23835312; Cooper, C., Rogers, M., Bethel, A., Briscoe, S., Lowe, J., A mapping review of the literature on UK-focused health and social care databases (2015) Health Inf Libr J, 32 (1), pp. 5-22; Younger, P., Boddy, K., When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG (2009) Health Inf Libr J, 26 (2), pp. 126-135; Lam, M.T., McDiarmid, M., Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014 (2016) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA., 104 (4), pp. 284-289. , 27822149; Bethel, A., Editor Search summary tables for systematic reviews: Results and findings (2017) HLC Conference; Aagaard, T., Lund, H., Juhl, C., Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews - Are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? (2016) BMC Med Res Methodol, 16 (1), p. 161. , 27875992 5120411; Adams, C.E., Frederick, K., An investigation of the adequacy of MEDLINE searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effects of mental health care (1994) Psychol Med, 24 (3), pp. 741-748. , 7991756; Kelly, L., St Pierre-Hansen, N., So many databases, such little clarity: Searching the literature for the topic aboriginal (2008) Canadian Family Physician Medecin de Famille Canadien, 54 (11), pp. 1572-1573. , 19005131 2592335; Lawrence, D.W., What is lost when searching only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion? (2008) Injury Prevention, 14 (6), pp. 401-404. , 19074247; Lemeshow, A.R., Blum, R.E., Berlin, J.A., Stoto, M.A., Colditz, G.A., Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies (2005) J Clin Epidemiol, 58 (9), pp. 867-873. , 16085190; Sampson, M., Barrowman, N.J., Moher, D., Klassen, T.P., Pham, B., Platt, R., Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? (2003) J Clin Epidemiol, 56 (10), pp. 943-955. , 14568625; Stevinson, C., Lawlor, D.A., Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: Added value or diminishing returns? (2004) Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 12 (4), pp. 228-232. , 15649836; Suarez-Almazor, M.E., Belseck, E., Homik, J., Dorgan, M., Ramos-Remus, C., Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough (2000) Control Clin Trials, 21 (5), pp. 476-487. , 11018564; Taylor, B., Wylie, E., Dempster, M., Donnelly, M., Systematically retrieving research: A case study evaluating seven databases (2007) Res Soc Work Pract, 17 (6), pp. 697-706; Beyer, F.R., Wright, K., Can we prioritise which databases to search? A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management (2013) Health Info Libr J, 30 (1), pp. 49-58. , 23413793; Duffy, S., De Kock, S., Misso, K., Noake, C., Ross, J., Stirk, L., Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE in-process searches via Ovid (2016) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA., 104 (4), pp. 309-312. , 27822154; Katchamart, W., Faulkner, A., Feldman, B., Tomlinson, G., Bombardier, C., PubMed had a higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE in the search for systematic reviews (2011) J Clin Epidemiol, 64 (7), pp. 805-807. , 20926257; Cooper, C., Lovell, R., Husk, K., Booth, A., Garside, R., Supplementary search methods were more effective and offered better value than bibliographic database searching: A case study from public health and environmental enhancement (in Press) (2017) Research Synthesis Methods; Cooper, C., Booth, A., Britten, N., Garside, R., A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: A methodological review (2017) BMC Systematic Reviews, , (In Press); Greenhalgh, T., Peacock, R., Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources (2005) BMJ (Clinical Research Ed)., 331 (7524), pp. 1064-1065. , 1283190; Hinde, S., Spackman, E., Bidirectional citation searching to completion: An exploration of literature searching methods (2015) PharmacoEconomics, 33 (1), pp. 5-11. , 25145803; Levay, P., Ainsworth, N., Kettle, R., Morgan, A., Identifying evidence for public health guidance: A comparison of citation searching with web of science and Google scholar (2016) Res Synth Methods., 7 (1), pp. 34-45. , 26147600; McManus, R.J., Wilson, S., Delaney, B.C., Fitzmaurice, D.A., Hyde, C.J., Tobias, R.S., Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews (1998) BMJ (Clinical Research Ed), 317 (7172), pp. 1562-1563; Westphal, A., Kriston, L., Holzel, L.P., Harter, M., Von Wolff, A., Efficiency and contribution of strategies for finding randomized controlled trials: A case study from a systematic review on therapeutic interventions of chronic depression (2014) Journal of Public Health Research, 3 (2), p. 177. , 25343133 4207021; Matthews, E.J., Edwards, A.G., Barker, J., Bloor, M., Covey, J., Hood, K., Efficient literature searching in diffuse topics: Lessons from a systematic review of research on communicating risk to patients in primary care (1999) Health Libr Rev, 16 (2), pp. 112-120. , 10538792; Bethel, A., (2017) Endnote Training (YouTube Videos), , http://medicine.exeter.ac.uk/esmi/workstreams/informationscience/is_resources,_guidance_&_advice/; Bramer, W.M., Giustini, D., De Jonge, G.B., Holland, L., Bekhuis, T., De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote (2016) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA., 104 (3), pp. 240-243. , 27366130; Bramer, W.M., Milic, J., Mast, F., Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote (2017) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA., 105 (1), pp. 84-87. , 28096751; Gall, C., Brahmi, F.A., Retrieval comparison of EndNote to search MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed) versus searching them directly (2004) Medical Reference Services Quarterly., 23 (3), pp. 25-32. , 15364649; Ahmed, K.K., Al Dhubaib, B.E., Zotero: A bibliographic assistant to researcher (2011) J Pharmacol Pharmacother, 2 (4), pp. 303-305. , 22025866 3198533; Coar, J.T., Sewell, J.P., Zotero: Harnessing the power of a personal bibliographic manager (2010) Nurse Educ, 35 (5), pp. 205-207. , 20729678; Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., The, P.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (2009) PLoS Med, 6 (7). , e1000097 19621072 2707599; Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Tetzlaff, J., Cogo, E., Moher, D., No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews (2008) J Clin Epidemiol, 61 (8), pp. 748-754. , 18586178; Toews, L.C., Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines (2017) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA., 105 (3), pp. 233-239. , 28670210; Booth, A., "brimful of STARLITE": Toward standards for reporting literature searches (2006) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA., 94 (4), pp. 421-429. , 17082834 e205; Faggion, C.M., Jr., Wu, Y.C., Tu, Y.K., Wasiak, J., Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery (2016) Br J Radiol, 89 (1062), p. 20150878. , 26986458 5258155; Mullins, M.M., Deluca, J.B., Crepaz, N., Lyles, C.M., Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): Are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible? (2014) Research Synthesis Methods., 5 (2), pp. 116-130. , 26052651; Yoshii, A., Plaut, D.A., McGraw, K.A., Anderson, M.J., Wellik, K.E., Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews (2009) Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 97 (1), pp. 21-29. , 19158999; Bigna, J.J., Um, L.N., Nansseu, J.R., A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2016) Syst Rev., 5 (1), p. 174. , 27737710 5064935; Akhigbe, T., Zolnourian, A., Bulters, D., Compliance of systematic reviews articles in brain arteriovenous malformation with PRISMA statement guidelines: Review of literature (2017) Journal of Clinical Neuroscience: Official Journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia, 39, pp. 45-48; Tao, K.M., Li, X.Q., Zhou, Q.H., Moher, D., Ling, C.Q., Yu, W.F., From QUOROM to PRISMA: A survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature (2011) PLoS One, 6 (11). , e27611 22110690 3217994; Wasiak, J., Tyack, Z., Ware, R., (2016) Goodwin N, , Faggion CM Jr. Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management. International wound journal; Tam, W.W., Lo, K.K., Khalechelvam, P., Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: A cross-sectional study (2017) BMJ Open, 7 (2). , e013905 28174224 5306529; Rader, T., Mann, M., Stansfield, C., Cooper, C., Sampson, M., Methods for documenting systematic review searches: A discussion of common issues (2014) Res Synth Methods, 5 (2), pp. 98-115. , 26052650; Atkinson, K.M., Koenka, A.C., Sanchez, C.E., Moshontz, H., Cooper, H., Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: Making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate (2015) Res Synth Methods., 6 (1), pp. 87-95. , 26035472; McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D.M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., Lefebvre, C., PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement (2016) J Clin Epidemiol, 75, pp. 40-46. , 27005575; Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Cogo, E., Grimshaw, J., Moher, D., Lefebvre, C., An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies (2009) J Clin Epidemiol, 62 (9), pp. 944-952. , 19230612; Shea, B.J., Reeves, B.C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017) BMJ, p. 358. , (Clinical research ed); Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J.P.T., Caldwell, D.M., Reeves, B.C., Shea, B., ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2016) J Clin Epidemiol, 69, pp. 225-234. , 26092286 4687950; Relevo, R., Balshem, H., Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health care program (2011) J Clin Epidemiol, 64 (11), pp. 1168-1177. , 21684115; Standards for Systematic Reviews 2011, , http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx, Medicine Io; (2018) Resources, , CADTH},
correspondence_address1={Cooper, C.; Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Medical SchoolUnited Kingdom; эл. почта: Christopher.Cooper@exeter.ac.uk},
publisher={BioMed Central Ltd.},
issn={14712288},
language={English},
abbrev_source_title={BMC Med. Res. Methodol.},
document_type={Review},
source={Scopus},
}

@ARTICLE{Penedones201855,
author={Penedones, A. and Batel Marques, F.},
title={Methodologic assessment of the systematic reviews of ophthalmic adverse drug reactions published in ophthalmology journals: A systematic review},
journal={Ophthalmic Research},
year={2018},
volume={60},
number={2},
pages={55-68},
doi={10.1159/000489932},
note={cited By 0},
url={https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85049901200&doi=10.1159%2f000489932&partnerID=40&md5=8d696920870b62c9c4de95f668d84b9b},
affiliation={Pharmacovigilance Unit of Coimbra (UFC), Centre for Health Technology Assessment and Drug Research (CHAD), AIBILI, Azinhaga Sta. Comba Celas, Coimbra, PT-3000-548, Portugal; School of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Laboratory of Social Pharmacy and Public Health, School of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal},
abstract={Purpose: This systematic review aims to characterize and review the methodology of the systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions. Methods: This systematic review followed the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guide. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched, by all Ophthalmology journals. All systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions in the last decade were included. Data on methodology were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed through A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 scale. Descriptive analysis was performed. Results: Twenty-one systematic reviews were identified. Almost 60% of the systematic reviews reported non-ophthalmic drugs. Nine (43%) systematic reviews did not follow any recommendation. A search filter was not applied in 48% systematic reviews. Observational data was the source of information most included. The methodological quality was assessed in 57% systematic reviews. A meta-analysis was performed in 57% systematic reviews. The protocol's elaboration, the explanation of the sources of information and the list of excluded articles were the domains less performed in the systematic reviews. Conclusion: The systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions diverged in some methodological aspects. Such an issue deserves further investigation, since discrepancies may lead to biased conclusions and, consequently, impact clinical and/or regulatory decisions. © 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel. All rights reserved.},
author_keywords={Adverse drug reactions;  Methods;  Ophthalmology;  Systematic review},
keywords={acetylsalicylic acid;  aflibercept;  alpha interferon;  amfebutamone;  analgesic agent;  anticoagulant agent;  antiglaucoma agent;  antiinfective agent;  antineoplastic agent;  apixaban;  beta interferon;  bevacizumab;  brinzolamide;  cobalt;  corticosteroid;  dabigatran;  dorzolamide;  dorzolamide plus timolol;  edoxaban;  hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor;  immunostimulating agent;  latanoprost;  mitogen activated protein kinase kinase inhibitor;  ocriplasmin;  pegaptanib;  quinoline derived antiinfective agent;  radiopharmaceutical agent;  ranibizumab;  rivaroxaban;  unindexed drug, age related macular degeneration;  clinical protocol;  closed angle glaucoma;  conjunctival hyperemia;  drug surveillance program;  eye disease;  human;  intraocular hemorrhage;  intraocular hypertension;  optic nerve disease;  priority journal;  retina detachment;  Review;  systematic review;  systematic review (topic);  tumor invasion;  vitreous body detachment;  adverse drug reaction;  literature;  ophthalmology;  publishing, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions;  Ophthalmology;  Publishing;  Review Literature as Topic},
chemicals_cas={acetylsalicylic acid, 493-53-8, 50-78-2, 53663-74-4, 53664-49-6, 63781-77-1; aflibercept, 845771-78-0, 862111-32-8; amfebutamone, 31677-93-7, 34911-55-2; apixaban, 503612-47-3; bevacizumab, 216974-75-3, 1438851-35-4; brinzolamide, 138890-62-7; cobalt, 7440-48-4; dorzolamide, 130693-82-2; edoxaban, 480449-70-5, 480449-71-6, 912273-65-5; latanoprost, 130209-82-4; ocriplasmin, 1048016-09-6; pegaptanib, 222716-86-1; ranibizumab, 347396-82-1; rivaroxaban, 366789-02-8},
references={Oxman, A., Guyatt, G., The science of reviewing research (1993) Ann N y Acad Sci, 703, pp. 125-133; Antman, E.M., Lau, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F., Chalmers, T.C., A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction (1992) JAMA, 268, pp. 240-248; Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (2009) Ann Intern Med, 151, pp. 264-269. , PRISMA Group; (2015) Endpoints Used in Relative Effectiveness Assessment-Safety, pp. 1-42. , http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/default/files/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/WP7-SG3-GL-safety_amend2015.pdf, (last accessed February 16, 2018); Singh, S., Loke, Y.K., Drug safety assessment in clinical trials: Methodological challenges and opportunities (2012) Trials, 13, p. 138; Strom, B.L., Study designs available for pharmacoepidemiology studies (2006) Textbook of Pharmacoepidemiology, pp. 13-24. , Strom BL, Kimmel SE (eds). West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; Miguel, A., Henriques, F., Azevedo, L.F., Pereira, A.C., Ophthalmic adverse drug reactions to systemic drugs: A systematic review (2014) Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 23, pp. 221-233; Penedones, A., Mendes, D., Alves, C., Marques, F.B., Drug-induced ocular adverse reactions: Review of the safety alerts issued during the last decade (2015) J Ocul Pharmacol Ther, 31, pp. 258-268; Penedones, A., Mendes, D., Alves, C., Batel Marques, F., Safety monitoring of ophthalmic biologics: A systematic review of pre-and postmarketing safety data (2014) J Ocul Pharmacol Ther, 30, pp. 729-751; Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, , www.handbook.cochrane.org, The Cochrane Collaboration (updated March 2011); Golder, S., Loke, Y., McIntosh, H.M., Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects (2006) BMC Med Res Methodol, 6, p. 3; The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor, , https://clarivate.com/essays/impact-factor/, Clarivate Analytics (last accessed February 16, 2018); WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology Website: Structure and Principles, , www.whocc.no/atc/structure_and_principles, (last accessed January 03, 2017); MedDRA Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Website: Welcome to MedDRA, , www.meddra.org/, (last accessed January 03, 2017); Shea, B.J., Reeves, B.C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Henry, D.A., AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017) BMJ, 358, p. j4008; Stroup, D.F., Berlin, J.A., Morton, S.C., Metaanalysis of observational studies (2000) JAMA, 283, pp. 2008-2012; McCann, P., Hogg, R.E., Fallis, R., Azuara-Blanco, A., The effect of statins on intraocular pressure and on the incidence and progression of glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2016) Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 57, pp. 2729-2748; Ye, J., Xu, Y.F., He, J.J., Lou, L.X., Association between aspirin use and age-related macular degeneration: A meta-analysis (2014) Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 55, pp. 2687-2696; Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A.C., Catalá-López, F., Moher, D., Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: A cross-sectional study (2016) PLoS Med, 13, p. e1002028; Chen, H., Jhanji, V., Survey of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in ophthalmology (2012) Br J Ophthalmol, 96, pp. 896-899; Golder, S., Loke, Y.K., Zorzela, L., Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011 (2013) J Clin Epidemiol, 66, pp. 253-260; Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Seventyfive trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? (2010) PLoS Med, 7, p. e1000326; Naudet, F., Schuit, E., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Overlapping network meta-analyses on the same topic: Survey of published studies (2017) Int J Epidemiol, 46, pp. 1999-2008; Ioannidis, J.P., The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2016) Milbank Q, 94, pp. 485-514; Golder, S., Loke, Y., McIntosh, H.M., Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects (2008) J Clin Epidemiol, 61, pp. 440-448; Zorzela, L., Golder, S., Liu, Y., Pilkington, K., Hartling, L., Joffe, A., Loke, Y., Vohra, S., Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: Systematic review (2014) BMJ, 348, p. f7668; Penedones, A., Alves, C., Batel Marques, F., (2018) Recommendations to Conduct and Report Systematic Reviews in Medical Literature: Systematic Review, , http://www.spfarmacologia.pt/LivroAbstracts.pdf, Sociedade Portuguesa de Farmacologia Meeting (last accessed February 16, 2018); Van Der Reis, M.I., La Heij, E.C., De Jong-Hesse, Y., Ringens, P.J., Hendrikse, F., Schouten, J.S.A.G., A systematic review of the adverse events of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections (2011) Retina, 31, pp. 1449-1469; MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How Are They Different?, , https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/dif_med_pub.html, U.S. National Library of Medicine (last accessed February 16, 2018); Rathbone, J., Carter, M., Hoffmann, T., Glasziou, P., A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension (2016) Syst Rev, 5, p. 27; Aagaard, T., Lund, H., Juhl, C., Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews-are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders? (2016) BMC Med Res Methodol, 16, p. 161; Jones, C.W., Keil, L.G., Weaver, M.A., Platts-Mills, T.F., Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: A crosssectional analysis (2014) Syst Rev, 3, p. 126; Van Enst, W.A., Scholten, R.J.P.M., Hooft, L., Identification of additional trials in prospective trial registers for cochrane systematic reviews (2012) PLoS One, 7, p. e42812; (2009) Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare, , Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; Joober, R., Schmitz, N., Annable, L., Boksa, P., Publication bias: What are the challenges and can they be overcome? (2012) J Psychiatry Neurosci, 37, pp. 149-152; Yoshii, A., Plaut, D.A., McGraw, K.A., Anderson, M.J., Wellik, K.E., Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews (2009) J Med Libr Assoc, 97, pp. 21-29; Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: A cross-sectional study (2016) PLoS One, 11, pp. 1-16; Golder, S., Loke, Y.K., Zorzela, L., Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews (2014) Health Info Libr J, 31, pp. 92-105; Adams, J., Hillier-Brown, F.C., Moore, H.J., Lake, A.A., Araujo-Soares, V., White, M., Summerbell, C., Searching and synthesising "grey literature" and "grey information" in public health: Critical reflections on three case studies (2016) Syst Rev, 5, p. 164; Berlin, J., Soledad Cepeda, M., Kim, C., (2012) The Use of Meta-analysis in Pharmacoepidemiology, pp. 723-756. , Strom B, Kimmel S, Hennessy S. Pharmacoepidemiology, ed 5. Chichester, England, John Wiley & Sons; Li, T., Bartley, G.B., Publishing systematic reviews in ophthalmology: New guidance for authors (2014) Ophthalmology, 121, pp. 438-439},
publisher={S. Karger AG},
issn={00303747},
coden={OPRSA},
pubmed_id={29975961},
language={English},
abbrev_source_title={Ophthalmic Res.},
document_type={Review},
source={Scopus},
}

@ARTICLE{Faggion201853,
author={Faggion, C.M., Jr. and Huivin, R. and Aranda, L. and Pandis, N. and Alarcon, M.},
title={The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible},
journal={Journal of Clinical Epidemiology},
year={2018},
volume={98},
pages={53-61},
doi={10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.011},
note={cited By 2},
url={https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85044126218&doi=10.1016%2fj.jclinepi.2018.02.011&partnerID=40&md5=59aeee786c50c2c980dd9d6c45d11e84},
affiliation={Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, University of Münster, Waldeyerstraße 30, Münster, 48149, Germany; Academic Department of Clinical Stomatology, Section of Periodontology and Implants, Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University, Lima, Peru; Medical Faculty, School of Dental Medicine, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland},
abstract={Objectives: To evaluate whether the reporting of search strategies and the primary study selection process in dental systematic reviews is reproducible. Study Design and Setting: A survey of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals from June 2015 to June 2016 was conducted. Study selection was performed independently by two authors, and the reproducibility of the selection process was assessed using a tool consisting of 12 criteria. Regression analyses were implemented to evaluate any associations between degrees of reporting (measured by the number of items positively answered) and journal impact factor (IF), presence of meta-analysis, and number of citations of the systematic review in Google Scholar. Results: Five hundred and thirty systematic reviews were identified. Following our 12 criteria, none of the systematic reviews had complete reporting of the search strategies and selection process. Eight (1.5%) systematic reviews reported the list of excluded articles (with reasons for exclusion) after title and abstract assessment. Systematic reviews with more positive answers to the criteria were significantly associated with higher journal IF, number of citations, and inclusion of meta-analysis. Conclusion: Search strategies and primary study selection process in systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals may not be fully reproducible. © 2018 Elsevier Inc.},
author_keywords={Dentistry;  Evidence-based practice;  Methods;  PRISMA;  Reproducibility of search and primary study selection strategy;  Systematic review},
keywords={Article;  dentistry;  health care survey;  human;  information processing;  journal impact factor;  medical literature;  Medline;  meta analysis (topic);  priority journal;  reproducibility;  systematic review;  systematic review (topic)},
references={Jasny, B.R., Chin, G., Chong, L., Vignieri, S., Data replication & reproducibility. Again, and again, and again…Introduction (2011) Science, 334, p. 1225; Fidler, F., Chee, Y.E., Wintle, B.C., Burgman, M.A., McCarthy, M.A., Gordon, A., Meta research for evaluating reproducibility in Ecology and evolution (2017) Bioscience, 67, pp. 282-289; Baker, M., 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility (2016) Nature, 533, pp. 452-454; Statistical challenges in assessing and fostering the reproducibility of scientific results: summary of a workshop (2016), The National Academies Press Washington, DC; Reality check on reproducibility (2016) Nature, 533, p. 437; Casadevall, A., Fang, F.C., Reproducible science (2010) Infect Immun, 78, pp. 4972-4975; Vaitkus, P.T., Brar, C., N-acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: publication bias perpetuated by meta-analyses (2007) Am Heart J, 153, pp. 275-280; Ioannidis, J.P., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M.A., Khoury, M.J., Macleod, M.R., Moher, D., Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis (2014) Lancet, 383, pp. 166-175; 5th World Conference on research Integrity, 2017 http://www.wcri2017.org/, Available at (Accessed 23 June 2017); The Reward Alliance (2017), http://rewardalliance.net/, Available at (Accessed 23 June 2017); Goodman, S.N., Fanelli, D., Ioannidis, J.P., What does research reproducibility mean? (2016) Sci Transl Med, 8 (341), p. 341ps12; International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) (2017), http://www.who.int/classifications/ichi/en/, Available at (Accessed 15 June 2017); Cochrane glossary (2017), http://community-archive.cochrane.org/glossary, Available at (Accessed 15 June 2017); Baker, M., Dolgin, E., Cancer reproducibility project releases first results (2017) Nature, 541, pp. 269-270; Begley, C.G., Ellis, L.M., Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research (2012) Nature, 483, pp. 531-533; Mobley, A., Linder, S.K., Braeuer, R., Ellis, L.M., Zwelling, L., A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic (2013) PLoS One, 8, p. e63221; PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015) Science, 349, p. aac4716; Makel, M.C., Plucker, J.A., Hegarty, B., Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? (2012) Perspect Psychol Sci, 7, pp. 537-542; Frederickson, R.M., Brenner, M.K., A question of reproducibility (2014) Mol Ther, 22 (12), p. 2015; Poland, C.A., Miller, M.R., Duffin, R., Cassee, F., The elephant in the room: reproducibility in toxicology (2014) Part Fibre Toxicol, 11, p. 42; Bergman, R.G., Danheiser, R.L., Reproducibility in chemical research (2016) Angew Chem Int Ed Engl, 55, pp. 12548-12549; Chavalarias, D., Ioannidis, J.P., Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research (2010) J Clin Epidemiol, 63, pp. 1205-1215; Page, M.J., Altman, D.G., Shamseer, L., McKenzie, J.E., Ahmadzai, N., Wolfe, D., Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions (2018) J Clin Epidemiol, 94, pp. 8-18; Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and Surgery journals: a Cross-Sectional study (2016) PLoS One, 11, p. e0163309; Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A.C., Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study (2016) PLoS Med, 13, p. e1002028; Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A.C., Sampson, M., Altman, D.G., Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (2007) PLoS Med, 4, p. e78; Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., Horton, R., Moher, D., Olkin, I., Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996) JAMA, 276, pp. 637-639; Altman, D.G., Simera, I., A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network (2016) J R Soc Med, 109, pp. 67-77; Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009) J Clin Epidemiol, 62, pp. e1-e34},
correspondence_address1={Faggion, C.M.; Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, University of Münster, Waldeyerstraße 30, Germany; эл. почта: clovisfaggion@yahoo.com},
publisher={Elsevier USA},
issn={08954356},
coden={JCEPE},
language={English},
abbrev_source_title={J. Clin. Epidemiol.},
document_type={Review},
source={Scopus},
}

@ARTICLE{Wissinger2018248,
author={Wissinger, C.L.},
title={Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process?},
journal={Journal of the Medical Library Association},
year={2018},
volume={106},
number={2},
pages={248-250},
doi={10.5195/jmla.2018.387},
note={cited By 0},
url={https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85045339558&doi=10.5195%2fjmla.2018.387&partnerID=40&md5=48191ffb2fddd01d8573f066c631245f},
affiliation={Pennsylvania State University Libraries, University Park, PA, United States},
abstract={Systematic reviews are a well-established and well-honed research methodology in the medical and health sciences fields. As the popularity of systematic reviews has increased, disciplines outside the sciences have started publishing them. This increase in familiarity has begun to trickle down from practitioners and faculty to graduate students and recently undergraduates. The amount of work and rigor that goes into producing a quality systematic review may make these types of research projects seem unattainable for undergraduate or graduate students, but is this an accurate assumption? This commentary discusses whether there is a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process. It explains the possible benefits of having undergraduate and graduate students engage in systematic reviews and concludes with ideas for creating basic education or training opportunities for researchers and students who are new to the systematic review process. © 2018, Medical Library Association. All rights reserved.},
keywords={information retrieval;  literature;  personnel;  student;  university, Information Storage and Retrieval;  Research Personnel;  Review Literature as Topic;  Students;  Universities},
references={Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: A cross-sectional study (2016) PLOS ONE, 11 (9), pp. 1-16. , https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163309, Sep 26; Schardt, C., (2017) Are All Systemic Reviews Created Equal?, , http://www.medlib-ed.org/products/1152/are-all-systematic-reviews-created-equal, [Internet]. Chicago, IL: Medical Library Association [cited 20 Oct; Edwards, P., Clarke, M., Diguiseppi, C., Pralap, S., Roberts, I., Wentz, R., Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: Accuracy and reliability of screening records (2002) Statist Med, 21 (11), pp. 1635-1640. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.1190, Jun 15; PRISMA, (2017) Flow Diagram, , http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram.aspx, [Internet]. [rev. 2015; cited 20 Oct; Boland, A., Cherry, M.G., Dickson, R., (2014) Doing A Systematic Review: A student’s Guide, , London, UK: Sage; Albanese, M.A., Snow, M.H., Skochelak, S.E., Hugget, K.N., Farrell, P.M., Assessing personal qualities in medical school admissions (2001) Acad Med, 78 (3), pp. 313-321. , Mar; Petticrew, M., Roberts, H.S., (2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, , Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing},
correspondence_address1={Wissinger, C.L.; Pennsylvania State University LibrariesUnited States; эл. почта: clw68@psu.edu},
publisher={Medical Library Association},
issn={15365050},
coden={JMLAC},
pubmed_id={29632448},
language={English},
abbrev_source_title={J. Med. Libr. Assoc.},
document_type={Note},
source={Scopus},
}

@ARTICLE{Bullers2018198,
author={Bullers, K. and Howard, A.M. and Hanson, A. and Kearns, W.D. and Orriola, J.J. and Polo, R.L. and Sakmar, K.A.},
title={It takes longer than you think: Librarian time spent on systematic review tasks},
journal={Journal of the Medical Library Association},
year={2018},
volume={106},
number={2},
pages={198-207},
doi={10.5195/jmla.2018.323},
note={cited By 1},
url={https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85045324358&doi=10.5195%2fjmla.2018.323&partnerID=40&md5=41ace23b2a150d1115894e68aa76e3e6},
affiliation={Emerging Technologies and Pharmacy Liaison Librarian, Hinks and Elaine Shimberg Health Sciences Library, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States; Research and Education Librarian, Hinks and Elaine Shimberg Health Sciences Library, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States; Research and Education, Hinks and Elaine Shimberg Health Sciences Library, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States; Department of Rehabilitation and Mental Health Counseling, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States},
abstract={Introduction: The authors examined the time that medical librarians spent on specific tasks for systematic reviews (SRs): interview process, search strategy development, search strategy translation, documentation, deliverables, search methodology writing, and instruction. We also investigated relationships among the time spent on SR tasks, years of experience, and number of completed SRs to gain a better understanding of the time spent on SR tasks from time, staffing, and project management perspectives. Methods: A confidential survey and study description were sent to medical library directors who were members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries as well as librarians serving members of the Association of American Medical Colleges or American Osteopathic Association. Results: Of the 185 participants, 143 (77%) had worked on an SR within the last 5 years. The number of SRs conducted by participants during their careers ranged from 1 to 500, with a median of 5. The major component of time spent was on search strategy development and translation. Average aggregated time for standard tasks was 26.9 hours, with a median of 18.5 hours. Task time was unrelated to the number of SRs but was positively correlated with years of SR experience. Conclusion: The time required to conduct the librarian’s discrete tasks in an SR varies substantially, and there are no standard time frames. Librarians with more SR experience spent more time on instruction and interviews; time spent on all other tasks varied widely. Librarians also can expect to spend a significant amount of their time on search strategy development, translation, and writing. © 2018, Medical Library Association. All rights reserved.},
keywords={adult;  article;  career;  documentation;  female;  health science;  human;  human experiment;  interview;  librarian;  library;  male;  medical school;  systematic review;  writing;  information retrieval;  questionnaire;  statistics and numerical data;  time factor;  workload, Information Storage and Retrieval;  Librarians;  Surveys and Questionnaires;  Time Factors;  Workload},
references={Eden, J., Levit, L., Berg, A., Morton, S., (2011) Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews, , https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13059/finding-what-works-in-health-care-standards-for-systematic-reviews, National Academies Press, [cited 20 Feb 2018].); Higgins, J., Green, S., Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [Internet] (2011) Cochrane Collaboration, , http:/handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/, [cited 20 Feb 2018]; Relevo, R., Balshem, H., (2011) Finding Evidence for Comparing Medical Interventions: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet], , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53479/, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, [cited 29 Jan 2018]; Rethlefsen, M.L., Farrell, A.M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L.C., Brigham, T.J., Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews (2015) J Clin Epidemiol, 68 (6), pp. 617-626. , Jun; Koffel, J.B., Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: A cross-sectional survey of recent authors (2015) PLOS ONE, 10 (5). , May; Weller, A.C., Mounting evidence that librarians are essential for comprehensive literature searches for meta-analyses and Cochrane reports (2004) J Med Libr Assoc, 92 (2), pp. 163-164; McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Systematic reviews need systematic searchers (2005) J Med Libr Assoc, 93 (1), pp. 74-80. , Jan; Gore, G., Jones, J., Systematic reviews and librarians: A primer for managers (2015) Partnership: Can J Libr Inf Pract Res, 10 (1), pp. 1-16; Li, L., Tian, J., Tian, H., Moher, D., Liang, F., Jiang, T., Yao, L., Yang, K., Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian (2014) J Clin Epidemiol, 67 (9), pp. 1001-1007. , Sep; Crum, J.A., Cooper, I.D., Emerging roles for biomedical librarians: A survey of current practice, challenges, and changes (2013) J Med Libr Assoc, 101 (4), pp. 278-286. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.009, Oct; Golder, S., Loke, Y., McIntosh, H.M., Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects (2008) J Clin Epidemiol, 61 (5), pp. 440-448. , May; Meert, D., Torabi, N., Costella, J., Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews (2016) J Med Libr Assoc, 104 (4), pp. 267-277. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004, Oct; Knehans, A., Dell, E., Robinson, C., Starting a fee-based systematic review service (2016) Med Ref Serv Q, 35 (3), pp. 266-273. , Jul; Allen, I.E., Olkin, I., Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved (1999) JAMA, 282 (7), pp. 634-635. , Aug 18; Saleh, A.A., Ratajeski, M.A., Bertolet, M., Grey literature searching for health sciences systematic reviews: A prospective study of time spent and resources utilized (2014) Evid Based Libr Inf Pract, 9 (3), pp. 28-50; Gann, L.B., Pratt, G.F., Using library search service metrics to demonstrate library value and manage workload (2013) J Med Libr Assoc, 101 (3), pp. 227-229. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.015, Jul; Nunnally, J., Bernstein, I.H., (1994) Psychometric Theory, , 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; Desmeules, R., Dorgan, M., Campbell, S., Acknowledging librarians’ contributions to systematic review searching (2016) J Can Health Libr Assoc, 37 (2), pp. 44-52; Harris, M.R., The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: A case study (2005) J Med Libr Assoc, 93 (1), pp. 81-87. , Jan; Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: A cross-sectional study (2016) PLOS ONE, 11 (9). , Sep},
publisher={Medical Library Association},
issn={15365050},
coden={JMLAC},
pubmed_id={29632442},
language={English},
abbrev_source_title={J. Med. Libr. Assoc.},
document_type={Article},
source={Scopus},
}

@ARTICLE{Salvador-Oliván2018,
author={Salvador-Oliván, J.A. and Marco-Cuenca, G. and Arquero-Avilés, R.},
title={Systematic reviews in Library and Information Science: Analysis and evaluation of the search process [Las revisiones sistemáticas en Biblioteconomía y Documentación: Análisis y evaluación del proceso de búsqueda]},
journal={Revista Espanola de Documentacion Cientifica},
year={2018},
volume={41},
number={2},
doi={10.3989/redc.2018.2.1491},
art_number={e207},
note={cited By 0},
url={https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85047329820&doi=10.3989%2fredc.2018.2.1491&partnerID=40&md5=df121d6f4a7fe736d117f2e795ce11f7},
affiliation={Departamento de Ciencias de la Documentación e Historia de la Ciencia, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain; Departamento de Biblioteconomía y Documentación, Facultad de Ciencias de la Documentación, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain},
abstract={Objective: An essential component of a systematic review is the development and execution of a literature search to identify all available and relevant published studies. The main objective of this study is to analyse and evaluate whether the systematic reviews in Library and Information Science (LIS) provide complete information on all the elements that make up the search process. Methods: A search was launched in WOS, Scopus, LISTA, Library Science Database, Medline databases and a wiki published from 2000 to February 2017, in order to find and identify systematic reviews. The search was designed to find those records whose titles included the words "systematic review" and/or "meta-analysis". A list was created with the twelve items recommended from of the main publication guides, to assess the information degree on each of them. Results and conclusions: Most of the reviews in LIS are created by information professionals. From the 94 systematic reviews selected for analysis, it was found that only a 4.3% provided the complete reporting on the search method. The most frequently included item is the name of the database (95.6%) and the least one is the name of the host (35.8%). It is necessary to improve and complete the information about the search processes in the complete reports from LIS systematic reviews for reproducibility, updating and quality assessment improvement. © 2018 CSIC.},
author_keywords={Bibliographic search;  Library and Information Science;  Literature search;  Publication guides;  Search reporting;  Search strategies;  Systematic reviews},
references={Ankem, K., Evaluation of method in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in LIS (2008) Library and Information Research, 32 (101), pp. 91-104; Boeker, M., Vach, W., Motschall, E., Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough (2013) BMC Medical Research Methodolology, 13 (131). , https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-131; Catalano, A., Patterns of graduate student's information seeking behavior: A meta-synthesis of the literature (2013) Journal of Documentation, 69 (2), pp. 243-274. , https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411311300066; Cooper, I.D., Crum, J.A., New activities and changing roles of health science librarians: a systematic review, 1990-2012 (2013) Journal of the Medical Library Association, 101 (4), pp. 268-277. , https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.008; Counsell, C., Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews (1997) Annals of Internal Medicine, 127 (5), pp. 380-387. , https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-5-199709010-00008; DeLuca, J.M., Developing a comprehensive search strategy for evidence based systematic reviews (2008) Evidence based Library and Information Practice, 3 (1), pp. 3-32. , https://doi.org/10.18438/B8KP66; Dudden, R.F., Protzko, S.L., The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian (2011) Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 30 (3), pp. 301-315. , https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2011.590425; Foster, M.J., An overview of the role of librarians in systematic reviews: from expert search to project manager (2015) Journal of EAHIL, 11 (3), pp. 3-7; Godin, K., Stapleton, J., Kirkpatrick, S.I., Hanning, R.M., Leatherdale, S.T., Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada (2015) Systematic Reviews, 4, p. 138. , https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0; Golder, S., Loke, Y., McIntosh, H.M., Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects (2008) Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61 (5), pp. 440-448. , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005; Golder, S., Loke, Y.K., Zorzela, L., Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews (2014) Health Information and Libraries Journal, 31 (2), pp. 92-105. , https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12041; Greenhalgh, T., Peacock, R., Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources (2005) British Medical Journal, 331, pp. 1064-1065. , https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68; Harris, M.R., The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study (2005) Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93 (1), pp. 81-87; Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (2011) Manual Cochrane de revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones Version 5.1.0, , http://handbook.cochrane.org, [actualizado marzo 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration fecha de consulta: 10 de febrero de 2017; (2011) Finding what works in healthcare: standards for systematic reviews, p. 340. , https://doi.org/10.17226/13059, Washington: The National Academies Press; Jadad, A.R., Moher, D., Klassen, T.P., Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews II. How did authors find the studies and assess their quality? (1998) Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 152 (8), pp. 812-817. , https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.152.8.812; Klassen, T.P., Jadad, A.R., Moher, D., Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews I. Getting started (1998) Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 152 (7), pp. 700-704. , https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.152.7.700; Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: A cross-sectional study (2016) PLoS ONE, 11 (9). , https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163309; Koffel, J.B., Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors (2015) PLoS ONE, 10 (5). , https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931; Koufogiannakis, D., The state of systematic reviews in Library and Information Studies (2012) Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7 (2), pp. 91-95. , https://doi.org/10.18438/B8Q021; Koufogiannakis, D., (2012) LIS Systematic Reviews, , http://lis-systematic-reviews.wikispaces.com/, [última fecha de actualización, 21 de junio de 2015] Fecha de consulta: 28 de febrero de 2017; Layton, D., A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: Are systematic reviews actually systematic? (2017) International Journal of Prosthodontics, 30 (1), pp. 13-21. , https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5193; Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E., Glanville, J., Capítulo 6: La búsqueda de estudios (2011) Manual Cochrane de revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones Version 5.1.0 [actualizado marzo 2011], , http://handbook.cochrane.org, En: Higgins, J.P.T.; Green, S. (eds.). The Cochrane Collaboration; Li, L., Tian, J., Tian, H., Moher, D., Liang, F., Jiang, T., Yao, L., Yang, K., Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian (2014) Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67 (9), pp. 1001-1007. , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.003; Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Clarke, M., Moher, D., The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009) PLoS Med, 6 (7). , https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100; Maden, M., Kotas, L., Evaluating approaches to quality assessment in Library and Information Science LIS systematic reviews: A methodology review (2016) Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11 (2), pp. 149-176. , https://doi.org/10.18438/B8F630; Maggio, L.A., Tannery, N.H., Kanter, S.L., Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews (2011) Academic Medicine, 86 (8), pp. 1049-1054. , https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822221e7; Mahood, Q., Eerd, D.V., Irvin, E., Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: Challenges and benefits (2014) Research Synthesis Methods, 5 (3), pp. 221-234. , https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1106; McGowan, J., For expert literature searching, call a librarian (2001) Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165 (10), pp. 1301-1302; McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Systematic reviews need systematic searchers (2005) Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93 (1), pp. 74-80; McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D.M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., Lefevre, C., PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement (2016) Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 75, pp. 40-46. , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021; McKibbon, K.A., Systematic reviews and librarians (2006) Library Trends, 55 (1), pp. 202-215. , https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0049; Meert, D., Torabi, N., Costella, J., Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews (2016) Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104 (4), pp. 267-277. , https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004; Moher, D., Cook, D.J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., Stroup, D.E., Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement (1999) Lancet, 354 (9193), pp. 1896-1900. , https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5; Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009) PLoS Medicine, 6 (7). , https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097; Mullins, M.M., DeLuca, J.B., Crepaz, N., Lyles, C.M., Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible? (2014) Research Synthesis Methods, 5 (2), pp. 116-130. , https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1098; Nissen, T., Wayant, C., Wahlstrom, A., Sinnett, P., Fugate, C., Herrington, J., Vassar, M., Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity (2017) Clinical Obesity, 7 (1), pp. 34-45. , https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12174; Phelps, S.F., Campbell, N., Systematic reviews in theory and practice for library and information studies (2012) Library and Information Research, 36 (112), pp. 6-15; Rader, T., Mann, M., Stansfield, C., Cooper, C., Sampson, M., Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of commons issues (2014) Research Synthesis Methods, 5 (2), pp. 98-115. , https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1097; Rethlefsen, M.L., Farrell, A.M., Trzasko, L.C.O., Brigham, T.J., Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews (2015) Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68 (6), pp. 617-626. , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025; Rethlefsen, M.L., Murad, M.H., Livingston, E.H., Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles (2014) Journal of the Medical Library Association, 312 (10), pp. 999-1000. , https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.9263; Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Tetzlaff, J., Cogo, E., Moher, D., No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews (2008) Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61 (8), pp. 748-754. , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.009; Shea, B.J., Grimshaw, J.M., Wells, G.A., Boers, M., Anderson, N., Hamel, C., Porter, A.C., Bouter, L.M., Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007) BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, p. 10. , https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10; Stansfield, C., Dickson, K., Bangpan, M., Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic? (2016) Systematic Reviews, 5 (1), p. 191. , https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9; Tannery, N.H., Maggio, L.A., The role of medical librarians in medical education review articles (2012) Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100 (2), pp. 142-144. , https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.2.015; Urquhart, C., Systematic reviewing, meta-analysis and meta-synthesis for evidence-based library and information science (2010) Information Research, 15 (3). , http://InformationR.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis708.html, [Fecha de consulta: 16 de marzo de 2017]; Xu, J., Kang, Q., Song, Z., The current state of systematic reviews in library and information studies (2015) Library & Information Science Research, 37 (4), pp. 296-310. , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2015.11.003; Yoshii, A., Plault, D.A., McGraw, K.A., Anderson, M.J., Wellik, K.E., Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews (2009) Journal of Medial Library Association, 97 (1), pp. 21-29. , https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004; Zorzela, L., Golder, S., Liu, Y., Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review (2014) British Medical Journal, 348. , https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7668},
publisher={CSIC Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas},
issn={02100614},
language={Spanish},
abbrev_source_title={Rev. Esp. Doc. Cient.},
document_type={Article},
source={Scopus},
}

@ARTICLE{Briscoe201889,
author={Briscoe, S.},
title={A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews},
journal={Research Synthesis Methods},
year={2018},
volume={9},
number={1},
pages={89-99},
doi={10.1002/jrsm.1275},
note={cited By 1},
url={https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85043590744&doi=10.1002%2fjrsm.1275&partnerID=40&md5=0a0700607cdee89ddcc6a748076427fd},
affiliation={Exeter HS&DR Evidence Synthesis Centre, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom},
abstract={The literature searches that are used to identify studies for inclusion in a systematic review should be comprehensively reported. This ensures that the literature searches are transparent and reproducible, which is important for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a systematic review and re-running the literature searches when conducting an update review. Web searching using search engines and the websites of topically relevant organisations is sometimes used as a supplementary literature search method. Previous research has shown that the reporting of web searching in systematic reviews often lacks important details and is thus not transparent or reproducible. Useful details to report about web searching include the name of the search engine or website, the URL, the date searched, the search strategy, and the number of results. This study reviews the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews published in the 6-month period August 2016 to January 2017 (n = 423). Of these reviews, 61 reviews reported using web searching using a search engine or website as a literature search method. In the majority of reviews, the reporting of web searching was found to lack essential detail for ensuring transparency and reproducibility, such as the search terms. Recommendations are made on how to improve the reporting of web searching in Cochrane systematic reviews. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.},
author_keywords={Cochrane reviews;  literature searches;  reporting;  web searching},
keywords={bibliographic database;  computer;  human;  information retrieval;  Internet;  literature;  publication;  reproducibility;  search engine;  software, Computers;  Databases, Bibliographic;  Humans;  Information Storage and Retrieval;  Internet;  Publications;  Reproducibility of Results;  Review Literature as Topic;  Search Engine;  Software},
references={Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009) PLoS Med, 6. , e1000097; Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (2011) Cochrane Handbook For Systematic Reviews Of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011], , www.Handbook.Cochrane.Org, (Eds)., The Cochrane Collaboration, Available From; Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E., Glanville, J., Searching For Studies (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (Updated March 2011), , www.Handbook.Cochrane.Org, In, Higgins JPT, Green S, eds., The Cochrane Collaboration, Available From; Higgins, J., Lasserson, T., Chandler, J., Tovey, D., Churchill, R., (2016) Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews, , London, Cochrane; Eysenbach, G., Tuische, J., Diepgen, T.L., Evaluation of the usefulness of internet searches to identify unpublished clinical trials for systematic reviews (2001) Med Inform Internet Med, 26, pp. 203-218; Godin, K., Stapleton, J., Kirkpatrick, S.I., Hanning, R.M., Leatherdale, S.T., Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada (2015) Systematic Reviews, 4, pp. 1-10; Stansfield, C., Brunton, G., Rees, R., Search wide, dig deep: literature searching for qualitative research. An analysis of the publication formats and information sources used for four systematic reviews in public health (2014) Research Synthesis Methods, 5, pp. 142-151; Briscoe, S., Web searching for systematic reviews: a case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment Programme (2015) BMC Res Notes, 8, p. 153; Stansfield, C., Dickson, K., Bangpan, M., Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic? (2016) Systematic Reviews, 5, p. 191; Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., Schütze, H., (2008) Introduction To Information Retrieval, , Cambridge University Press; Dellavalle, R.P., Hester, E.J., Heilig, L.F., Information science. Going, going, gone: lost internet References (2003) Science, 302, pp. 787-788; Booth, A., Brimful of Starlite”: toward standards for reporting literature searches (2006) J Med Libr Assoc, 94, pp. 421-429. , E205; (2008) Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care, , University Of York; (2014) Developing nice guidelines: the manual, , Manchester., April 2017 Update; Kugley, S., Wade, A., Thomas, J., (2017) Searching for Studies: A Guide to Information Retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews, , https://doi.org/10.4073/Cmg.2016.1, Oslo, The Campbell Collaboration; Moher, D., Cook, D.J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., Stroup, D.F., Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses (1999) Lancet, 354, pp. 1896-1900; Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., The Prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009) BMJ, 339, p. B2700; Faggion, C.M., Jr., Wu, Y.C., Tu, Y.K., Wasiak, J., Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery (2016) British Journal of Radiology, 89. , 20150878; Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: a cross-sectional study (2016) Plos One, 11. , E0163309; Mullins, M.M., Deluca, J.B., Crepaz, N., Lyles, C.M., Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000–2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible? (2014) Research Synthesis Methods, 5, pp. 116-130; Roundtree, A.K., Kallen, M.A., Lopez-Olivo, M.A., Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review (2009) J Clin Epidemiol, 62, pp. 128-137; Yoshii, A., Plaut, D.A., Mcgraw, K.A., Anderson, M.J., Wellik, K.E., Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews (2009) J Med Libr Assoc, 97, pp. 21-29; Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A.C., Sampson, M., Altman, D.G., Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (2007) PLoS Med, 4. , E78; Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study (2016) PLoS Med, 13. , E1002028; Baker, P.R., Francis, D.P., Hairi, N.N., Othman, S., Choo, W.Y., Interventions for preventing abuse in the elderly (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd010321.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Gillen, P.A., Sinclair, M., Kernohan, W.G., Begley, C.M., Luyben, A.G., Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd009778.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Barbaric, J., Abbott, R., Posadzki, P., Light therapies for acne (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd007917.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Barker, F., Mackenzie, E., Elliott, L., Jones, S., De, L.S., Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd010342.Pub3/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Chang, B.A., Thamboo, A., Burton, M.J., Diamond, C., Nunez, D.A., Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd006287.Pub4/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Howard, J., Masterson, L., Dwivedi, R.C., Minimally invasive surgery versus radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy for small-volume primary oropharyngeal carcinoma (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd010963.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Perry, A., Lee, S.H., Cotton, S., Kennedy, C., Therapeutic exercises for affecting post-treatment swallowing in people treated for advanced-stage head and neck cancers (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd011112.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Person, O.C., Puga, M.E., Da, S.E.M., Torloni, M.R., Zinc supplementation for tinnitus (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd009832.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Venekamp, R.P., Javed, F., Van, D.T.M., Waddell, A., Schilder, A.G., Interventions for children with ear discharge occurring at least two weeks following grommet (ventilation tube) insertion (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd011684.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Stansfield, C., Dickson, K., Bangpan, M., Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic? (2014) Systematic Reviews, 5, p. 191; Rikken, J.F., Kowalik, C.R., Emanuel, M.H., Septum resection for women of reproductive age with a septate uterus (2017) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd008576.Pub4/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Van Driel, M., De Sutter, A.I., Habraken, H., Thorning, S., Christiaens, T., Different antibiotic treatments for group a streptococcal pharyngitis (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd004406.Pub4/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Wikkelsø, A., Wetterslev, J., Møller, A.M., Afshari, A., Thromboelastography (TEG) or thromboelastometry (ROTEM) to monitor haemostatic treatment versus usual care in adults or children with bleeding (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd007871.Pub3/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Azarpazhooh, A., Lawrence, H.P., Shah, P.S., Xylitol for preventing acute otitis media in children up to 12 years of age (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd007095.Pub3/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Birch, D.W., Dang, J.T., Switzer, N.J., Heated insufflation with or without humidification for laparoscopic abdominal surgery (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd007821.Pub3/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Chua, S.J., Akande, V.A., Mol, B.W.J., Surgery for tubal infertility (2017) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd006415.Pub3/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Kirkland, S.W., Vandenberghe, C., Voaklander, B., Nikel, T., Campbell, S., Rowe, B.H., Combined inhaled beta-agonist and anticholinergic agents for emergency management in adults with asthma (2017) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd001284.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Lethaby, A., Ayeleke, R.O., Roberts, H., Local oestrogen for vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd001500.Pub3/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Ohlsson, A., Shah, P.S., Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for prevention or treatment of pain in newborns (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd011219.Pub3/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Orton, E., Whitehead, J., Mhizha-Murira, J., School-based education Programmes for the prevention of unintentional injuries in children and young people (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd010246.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Reavey, J., Vincent, K., Child, T., Granne, I.E., Human chorionic gonadotrophin priming for fertility treatment with in vitro maturation (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd008720.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Smith, S.R., Newton, K., Smith, J.A., Internal dressings for healing perianal abscess cavities (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd011193.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Vaona, A., Pappas, Y., Grewal, R.S., Ajaz, M., Majeed, A., Car, J., Training interventions for improving telephone consultation skills in clinicians (2017) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd010034.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Zhao, N., Xu, J., Singh, B., Yu, X., Wu, T., Huang, Y., Nitrates for the prevention of cardiac morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd010726.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Xiong, T., Chen, H., Luo, R., Mu, D., Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd010922.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Flodgren, G., Hall, A.M., Goulding, L., Tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers to promote the uptake of their guidelines (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd010669.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Gaitonde, R., Oxman, A.D., Okebukola, P.O., Rada, G., Interventions to reduce corruption in the health sector (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd008856.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Mclaren, L., Sumar, N., Barberio, A.M., Population-level interventions in government jurisdictions for dietary sodium reduction (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd010166.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Wiysonge, C.S., Abdullahi, L.H., Ndze, V.N., Hussey, G.D., Public stewardship of private for-profit healthcare providers in low- and middle-income countries (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd009855.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Clarke, M.J., Broderick, C., Hopewell, S., Juszczak, E., Eisinga, A., Compression stockings for preventing deep vein thrombosis in airline passengers (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd004002.Pub3/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Asnani, M.R., Quimby, K.R., Bennett, N.R., Francis, D.K., Interventions for patients and caregivers to improve knowledge of sickle cell disease and recognition of its related complications (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd011175.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Chattopadhyay, A., Frey, S., Green, G., Bifeprunox versus placebo for schizophrenia (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd012029.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Martí-Carvajal, A.J., Agreda-Pérez, L.H., Antibiotics for treating osteomyelitis in people with sickle cell disease (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd007175.Pub4/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Zhu, Y., Zhang, T., Xu, G., Peng, L., Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for choroidal neovascularisation in people with pathological myopia (2016) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, , https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd011160.Pub2/Abstract, [Online]. Available; Sandelowski, M., In response to “brimful of Starlite (2007) J Med Libr Assoc, 95, p. 233; Sullivan, D., (2013) Google still world's most popular search engine by far, but share of unique searchers dips slightly [Online], , http://http//Searchengineland.Com/Google-Worlds-Most-Popular-Search-Engine-148089, Available, [Accessed 30 May 2017]; (2007) Different engines, different results: web searchers not always finding what they're looking for online, , http://csearchcdn1.inspcloud.com/Dogpile/10.0.0.316/Content/Downloads/Overlap-Differentenginesdifferentresults.Pdf, [Accessed 30 May 2017]; Haddaway, N.R., Collins, A.M., Coughlin, D., Kirk, S., The role of Google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching (2015) Plos One, 10. , E0138237; Yahoo to Shut Down Pioneering Altavista Search Site [Online] (2013) BBC News, , http://http//Www.Bbc.Co.Uk/News/Technology-23127361, Available, Accessed 16 May 2017; Haddaway, N.R., Collins, A.M., Coughlin, D., Kirk, S., A rapid method to increase transparency and efficiency in web-based searches (2017) Environmental Evidence, 6, p. 1},
correspondence_address1={Briscoe, S.; Exeter HS&DR Evidence Synthesis Centre, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical SchoolUnited Kingdom; эл. почта: s.briscoe@exeter.ac.uk},
publisher={John Wiley and Sons Ltd},
issn={17592887},
pubmed_id={29065246},
language={English},
abbrev_source_title={Res. Synth. Methods},
document_type={Article},
source={Scopus},
}

@ARTICLE{Townsend2017268,
author={Townsend, W.A. and Anderson, P.F. and Ginier, E.C. and MacEachern, M.P. and Saylor, K.M. and Shipman, B.L. and Smith, J.E.},
title={A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews},
journal={Journal of the Medical Library Association},
year={2017},
volume={105},
number={3},
pages={268-275},
doi={10.5195/jmla.2017.189},
note={cited By 1},
url={https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85021916895&doi=10.5195%2fjmla.2017.189&partnerID=40&md5=75869de8127092d1b858702944dbf8de},
affiliation={Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan, 1135 East Catherine Street, Ann Arbor, MI, United States},
abstract={Objective: The project identified a set of core competencies for librarians who are involved in systematic reviews. Methods: A team of seven informationists with broad systematic review experience examined existing systematic review standards, conducted a literature search, and used their own expertise to identify core competencies and skills that are necessary to undertake various roles in systematic review projects. Results: The team identified a total of six competencies for librarian involvement in systematic reviews: “Systematic review foundations,” “Process management and communication,” “Research methodology,” “Comprehensive searching,” “Data management,” and “Reporting.” Within each competency are the associated skills and knowledge pieces (indicators). Competence can be measured using an adaptation of Miller’s Pyramid for Clinical Assessment, either through self-assessment or identification of formal assessment instruments. Conclusions: The Systematic Review Competencies Framework provides a standards-based, flexible way for librarians and organizations to identify areas of competence and areas in need of development to build capacity for systematic review integration. The framework can be used to identify or develop appropriate assessment tools and to target skill development opportunities. © 2017, Medical Library Association. All rights reserved.},
keywords={human;  librarian;  organization;  self evaluation;  skill;  systematic review;  interpersonal communication;  literature;  professional competence;  search engine, Communication;  Humans;  Librarians;  Professional Competence;  Review Literature as Topic;  Search Engine},
references={Crum, J.A., Cooper, I.D., Emerging roles for biomedical librarians: A survey of current practice, challenges, and changes (2013) J Med Libr Assoc, 101 (4), pp. 278-286. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.009; Dudden, R.F., Protzko, S.L., The systematic review team: Contributions of the health sciences librarian (2011) Med Ref Serv Q., 30 (3). , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2011.590425; Rethlefsen, M.L., Farrell, A.M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L.C., Brigham, T.J., Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews (2015) J Clin Epidemiol, 68 (6), pp. 617-626. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025; Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: A cross-sectional study (2016) Plos One, 11 (9). , http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163309; (2016) MLA’s Competencies for Lifelong Learning and Professional Success [Internet], , http://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=39; Lawton, A., Burns, J., A review of competencies needed for health librarians - A comparison of Irish and international practice (2015) Health Inf Libr J, 32 (2), pp. 84-94. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hir.12093; Kaviev, A.F., Mamontova, M.S., Information competence of a library specialist as a condition for their professional development (2016) Int J Environ Sci Educ, 11 (9), pp. 2745-2759; Huvila, I., Holmberg, K., Kronqvist-Berg, M., Nivakoski, O., Widén, G., What is librarian 2.0 - New competencies or interactive relations? A library professional viewpoint (2013) J Libr Inf Sci, 45 (3), pp. 198-205. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000613477122; Giuse, N.B., Kusnoor, S.V., Koonce, T.Y., Ryland, C.R., Walden, R.R., Naylor, H.M., Williams, A.M., Jerome, R.N., Strategically aligning a mandala of competencies to advance a transformative vision (2013) J Med Libr Assoc, 101 (4), pp. 261-267. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.007; Clarke, S., Thomas, Z., Health librarians: Developing professional competence through a ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ model (2011) Health Inf Libr J., 28 (4). , http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2010.00959.x; Sieving, P.C., Dickersin, K., Schere, R., Ervin, A., (2013) A Proposal for Certification of Librarians as Partners in Systematic Reviews, , Presented at: MLA ’13, Medical Library Association 113th Annual Meeting; Boston, MA; Higgins, J., Green, S., Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 [updated Mar 2011] (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration; (2014) Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ Manual: 2014 Edition, , Adelaide, Australia: The Institute; Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (2009) Plos Med, 6 (7). , http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097; Eden, J., Levit, L.A., Berg, A.O., Morton, S.C., (2011) Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews, , National Academies Press; (2014) Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines [Updated May 2016 Ed.], , The Collaboration; (2009) Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare, , The Centre; Miller, G.E., The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance (1990) Acad Med, 65 (9), pp. S63-S67; Mehay, R., Burns, R., Miller’s pyramid/prism of clinical competence (2009) The Essential Handbook for GP Training and Education, , Mehay R, London, UK: Radcliffe Publishing; McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D.M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., Lefebvre, C., PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement (2016) J Clin Epidemiol, 75, pp. 40-46. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021},
publisher={Medical Library Association},
issn={15365050},
coden={JMLAC},
pubmed_id={28670216},
language={English},
abbrev_source_title={J. Med. Libr. Assoc.},
document_type={Note},
source={Scopus},
}