key search terms in literature review

Systematic Reviews

• Introduction
• Review Process: Step by Step
• 1. Planning a Review
• 2. Defining Your Question & Criteria
• 3. Standards & Protocols

Designing Your Search Strategy

Search strategy checklists, pre-search tips, search strategies: filters & hedges, search terms, search strategies: and/or, phrase searching & truncation.

• 5. Locating Published Research
• 6. Locating Grey Literature
• 7. Managing & Documenting Results
• 8. Selecting & Appraising Studies
• 9. Extracting Data
• 10. Writing a Systematic Review
• Tools & Software
• Guides & Tutorials
• Accessing Resources
• Research Assistance

A well designed search strategy is essential to the success of your systematic review. Your strategy should be specific, unbiased, reproducible and will typically include subject headings along with a range of keywords/phrases for each of your concepts.  

Your searches should be designed to capture as many studies as possible that meet your criteria.

Chapter 4 of the  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions  provides detailed guidance for searching and study selection; see  Supplement 3.8 Adapting search strategies across databases / sources  for translating your search across databases.

Systematic Reviews: Constructing a Search Strategy and Searching for Evidence  from the Joanna Briggs Institute provides step-by-step guidance using PubMed as an example database. 

General Steps:

• Locate previous/ relevant searches
• Identify your databases
• Develop your search terms and design search
• Evaluate and modify your search
• Document your search ( PRISMA-S  Checklist)
• Translate your search for other databases
• Step by Step Systematic Review Search Checklist from MD Anderson Center Library
• PRESS Peer Review Checklist for Search Strategies

Conduct a preliminary set of scoping searches in various databases to test out your search terms (keywords and subject headings) and locate additional terms for your concepts.

Try building a "gold set" of relevant references to help you identify search terms. Sources for this gold set may include:

• Recommended key papers
• Papers by known authors in the field
• Results of preliminary searches from key databases such 
• Reviewing references and "cited by" articles lists for key papers
• Articles that have been published in authoritative journals 

Hedges/ Filters

• PubMed Special Queries

Hedges are search strings created by experts to help you retrieve specific types of studies or topics; a hedge will filter your results by adding specific search terms, or specific combinations of search terms, to your search.  

Hedges can be good starting points but you may need to modify the search string to fit your research. Resources for hedges:

• University of Texas, School of Public Health  (study type)
• McMaster University Health Information Research Unit
• The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group Search Filter Resource
• Pubmed Search Strategies blog
• PubMed Special Queries Topic-Specific PubMed Queries; includes keyword and search strategy examples.

Example:  Health Disparities & Minority Health Search Strategies

• Subject Headings
• Keywords Vs. Subject Headings
• Locating Subject Headings
• Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
• Keyword & Subject Headings Logic Grid

You can use your PICOTS concepts as preliminary search terms. The important terms in this question:

In adults , is screening for depression and feedback of results to providers more effective than no screening and feedback in improving outcomes of major depression in primary care settings?

...might include:

Major depression

Primary Care

(From Lackey, M. (2013). Systematic reviews: Searching the literature [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://guides.lib.unc.edu/ld.php?content_id=258919 )

Your search will include both keywords and subject headings. Controlled vocabulary systems, such as the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) or Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) , use pre-set terms that are used to tag resources on similar subjects. See boxes below for more information on finding and using subject terms.

Not all databases will have subject heading searching and for those that do, the subject heading categories may differ between databases. This is because databases classify articles using different criteria.

Using the keywords from our example, here are some MeSH terms for:

Adults : Adult (A person having attained full growth or maturity. Adults are of 19 through 44 years of age. For a person between 19 and 24 years of age, YOUNG ADULT is available.)

Screening : Mass Screening (Organized periodic procedures performed on large groups of people for the purpose of detecting disease.)

Major depression : Depressive Disorder, Major (Marked depression appearing in the involution period and characterized by hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, and agitation.)

Here is a LCSH subject term for:

Depression : Depression, mental (Dejection ; Depression, Unipolar ; Depressive disorder ; Depressive psychoses ; Melancholia ; Mental depression ; Unipolar depression)

• Most EBSCO databases have a tool to help you discover subject terms . See Academic Search Complete > Subject Terms and Academic Search Complete > Subject Terms: Thesaurus
• Most ProQuest databases have a tool to help you discover subject terms: See PsycInfo > Thesaurus
• When you find a useful article, look at the article's Subject Headings (or Subject or Subject Terms) , and record them as possible terms to use in a subject term search.

Here is an example of the subject terms listed for a systematic review found in PsycINFO, " Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force " (2016).

MeSH are standardized terms that describe the main concepts of PubMed/MedLine articles. Searching with MeSH can increase the precision of your search by providing a consistent way to retrieve articles that may use different terminology or spelling variations. 

Note: new articles will not have MeSH terms; the indexing process may take up to a few weeks for newly ingested articles. 

Use the  MeSH  database  to locate and build a search using MeSH.

To search the MeSH database:

• Search for 1 concept at a time.
• If you do not see a relevant MeSH in the results, search again with a synonym or related term.
• Click on the MeSH term to view to the complete record​, subheadings, broader and narrower terms. 

Build a search from the results list or from the MeSH term record to specify subheadings.

• Select the box next to the MeSH term or subheadings that you wish to search and click Add to Search Builder.
• ​You may need to switch  AND to OR , depending on how you would like to combine terms.
• Repeat the above steps to add additional MeSH terms. When your search is ready, click  Search PubMed.

Logic Grid with Keywords and Index Terms or Subject Headings from Systematic Reviews: Constructing a Search Strategy and Searching for Evidence.

 Bhuiyan, M. U., Stiboy, E., Hassan, M. Z., Chan, M., Islam, M. S., Haider, N., Jaffe, A., & Homaira, N. (2021). Epidemiology of COVID-19 infection in young children under five years: A systematic review and meta-analysis.   Vaccine ,  39 (4), 667–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.11.078 

• Boolean Logic: AND, OR, NOT
• Phrase Searching " "
• Truncation *
• Proximity Searching

AND, OR, NOT

Join together search terms in a logical manner.

AND - narrows searches, used to join dissimilar terms OR - broadens searches, used to join similar terms

NOT -  removes results containing specified keywords

#1 "major depression" AND "primary care"

#2 screen* OR feedback

#3 (screen* OR feedback)

AND “major depression”

AND “primary care”

"major depression" NOT suicide

" "  To search for specific phrases, enclose them in quotation marks . The database will search for those words together in that order.

“ primary care ”

“ major depression ”

Truncate a word in order to search for different forms of the same word. Many databases use the asterisk * as the truncation symbol.

Add the truncation symbol to the word screen * to search for screen, screens, screening, etc.

You do have to be careful with truncation. If you add the truncation symbol to the word minor* , the database will search for minor, minors, minority, minorities, etc.

Not all databases support proximity searching. You can use these strategies in ProQuest databases such as  Sociological Abstracts .

pre/#  is used to search for terms in proximity to each other in a  specific order;  # is replaced with the number of words permitted between the search terms.

Sample Search: parent*  pre/2  educational (within 2 words &   in order )

• This would retrieve articles with no more than two words between parent* and educational (in this order) e.g. " Parent  practices and  educational  achievement" OR " Parents  on  Educational  Attainment" OR " Parental  Values,  Educational  Attainment" etc.

w/#  is used to search for terms in proximity to each other in  any order ; # is replaced with the number of words permitted between the search terms.

Sample Search: parent*  w/3  educational (within 3 words & in  any order )

• This would retrieve articles with no more than three words between parent* and educational (in any order)   e.g. "Educational practices of parents" OR "Parents value motivation and education" OR "Educational attainments of Latino parents"
• << Previous: 3. Standards & Protocols
• Next: 5. Locating Published Research >>
• Last Updated: Feb 26, 2024 2:04 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/systematic-reviews

Help us improve our Library guides with this 5 minute survey . We appreciate your feedback!

• UOW Library
• Key guides for students

Literature Review

How to search effectively.

• Find examples of literature reviews
• How to write a literature review
• Grey literature

The  Literature searching interactive tutorial  includes self-paced, guided activities to assist you in developing  effective search skills..

1. Identify search words

Analyse your research topic or question.

• What are the main ideas?
• What concepts or theories have you already covered?
• Write down your main ideas, synonyms, related words and phrases.
• If you're looking for specific types of research, use these suggested terms: qualitative, quantitative, methodology, review, survey, test, trend (and more).
• Be aware of UK and US spelling variations. E.g. organisation OR organization, ageing OR aging.
• Interactive Keyword Builder
• Identifying effective keywords

2. Connect your search words

Find results with one or more search words.

Use OR between words that mean the same thing.

E.g.  adolescent  OR  teenager

This search will find results with either (or both) of the search words.

Find results with two search words

Use AND between words which represent the main ideas in the question.

E.g. adolescent AND “physical activity”

This will find results with both of the search words.

Exclude search words

Use NOT to exclude words that you don’t want in your search results.

E.g. (adolescent OR teenager) NOT “young adult”

3. Use search tricks

Search for different word endings.

Truncation *

The asterisk symbol * will help you search for different word endings.

E.g. teen* will find results with the words: teen, teens, teenager, teenagers

Specific truncation symbols will vary. Check the 'Help' section of the database you are searching.

Search for common phrases

Phrase searching “...........”

Double quotation marks help you search for common phrases and make your results more relevant.

E.g. “physical activity” will find results with the words physical activity together as a phrase.

Search for spelling variations within related terms

Wildcards ?

Wildcard symbols allow you to search for spelling variations within the same or related terms.

E.g. wom?n will find results with women OR woman

Specific wild card symbols will vary. Check the 'Help' section of the database you are searching.

Search terms within specific ranges of each other

Proximity  w/#

Proximity searching allows you to specify where your search terms will appear in relation to each other.

E.g.  pain w/10 morphine will search for pain within ten words of morphine

Specific proximity symbols will vary. Check the 'Help' section of the database you are searching.

4. Improve your search results

All library databases are different and you can't always search and refine in the same way. Try to be consistent when transferring your search in the library databases you have chosen.

Narrow and refine your search results by:

• year of publication or date range (for recent or historical research)
• document or source type (e.g. article, review or book)
• subject or keyword (for relevance). Try repeating your search using the 'subject' headings or 'keywords' field to focus your search
• searching in particular fields, i.e. citation and abstract. Explore the available dropdown menus to change the fields to be searched.

When searching, remember to:

Adapt your search and keep trying.

Searching for information is a process and you won't always get it right the first time. Improve your results by changing your search and trying again until you're happy with what you have found.

Keep track of your searches

Keeping track of searches saves time as you can rerun them, store references, and set up regular alerts for new research relevant to your topic.

Most library databases allow you to register with a personal account. Look for a 'log in', 'sign in' or 'register' button to get started.

• Literature review search tracker (Excel spreadsheet)

Manage your references

There are free and subscription reference management programs available on the web or to download on your computer.

• EndNote - The University has a license for EndNote. It is available for all students and staff, although is recommended for postgraduates and academic staff.
• Zotero - Free software recommended for undergraduate students.
• Previous: How to write a literature review
• Next: Where to search when doing a literature review
• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024 8:37 AM
• URL: https://uow.libguides.com/literaturereview

Insert research help text here

LIBRARY RESOURCES

Library homepage

Library SEARCH

A-Z Databases

STUDY SUPPORT

Academic Skills Centre

Referencing and citing

Digital Skills Hub

MORE UOW SERVICES

UOW homepage

Student support and wellbeing

IT Services

On the lands that we study, we walk, and we live, we acknowledge and respect the traditional custodians and cultural knowledge holders of these lands.

Copyright & disclaimer | Privacy & cookie usage

Literature Review: Developing a search strategy

• Traditional or narrative literature reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic literature reviews
• Annotated bibliography
• Keeping up to date with literature
• Finding a thesis
• Evaluating sources and critical appraisal of literature
• Managing and analysing your literature
• Further reading and resources

From research question to search strategy

Keeping a record of your search activity

Good search practice could involve keeping a search diary or document detailing your search activities (Phelps et. al. 2007, pp. 128-149), so that you can keep track of effective search terms, or to help others to reproduce your steps and get the same results. 

This record could be a document, table or spreadsheet with:

• The names of the sources you search and which provider you accessed them through - eg Medline (Ovid), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). You should also include any other literature sources you used.
• how you searched (keyword and/or subject headings)
• which search terms you used (which words and phrases)
• any search techniques you employed (truncation, adjacency, etc)
• how you combined your search terms (AND/OR). Check out the Database Help guide for more tips on Boolean Searching.
• The number of search results from each source and each strategy used. This can be the evidence you need to prove a gap in the literature, and confirms the importance of your research question.

A search planner may help you to organise you thoughts prior to conducting your search. If you have any problems with organising your thoughts prior, during and after searching please contact your Library  Faculty Team   for individual help.

• Literature search - a librarian's handout to introduce tools, terms and techniques Created by Elsevier librarian, Katy Kavanagh Web, this document outlines tools, terms and techniques to think about when conducting a literature search.
• Search planner

Literature search cycle

Diagram text description

This diagram illustrates the literature search cycle. It shows a circle in quarters. Top left quarter is identify main concepts with rectangle describing how to do this by identifying:controlled vocabulary terms, synonyms, keywords and spelling. Top right quarter select library resources to search and rectangle describing resources to search library catalogue relevant journal articles and other resource. Bottom right corner of circle search resources and in rectangle consider using boolean searching proximity searching and truncated searching techniques. Bottom left quarter of circle review and refine results. In rectangle evaluate results, rethink keywords and create alerts.

Have a search framework

Search frameworks are mnemonics which can help you focus your research question. They are also useful in helping you to identify the concepts and terms you will use in your literature search.

PICO is a search framework commonly used in the health sciences to focus clinical questions.  As an example, you work in an aged care facility and are interested in whether cranberry juice might help reduce the common occurrence of urinary tract infections.  The PICO framework would look like this:

Now that the issue has been broken up to its elements, it is easier to turn it into an answerable research question: “Does cranberry juice help reduce urinary tract infections in people living in aged care facilities?”

Other frameworks may be helpful, depending on your question and your field of interest. PICO can be adapted to PICOT (which adds T ime) or PICOS (which adds S tudy design), or PICOC (adding C ontext).

For qualitative questions you could use

• SPIDER : S ample,  P henomenon of  I nterest,  D esign,  E valuation,  R esearch type  

For questions about causes or risk,

• PEO : P opulation,  E xposure,  O utcomes

For evaluations of interventions or policies, 

• SPICE: S etting,  P opulation or  P erspective,  I ntervention,  C omparison,  E valuation or
• ECLIPSE: E xpectation,  C lient group,  L ocation,  I mpact,  P rofessionals,  SE rvice 

See the University of Notre Dame Australia’s examples of some of these frameworks. 

You can also try some PICO examples in the National Library of Medicine's PubMed training site: Using PICO to frame clinical questions.

Contact Your Faculty Team Librarian

Faculty librarians are here to provide assistance to students, researchers and academic staff by providing expert searching advice, research and curriculum support.

• Faculty of Arts & Education team
• Faculty of Business, Justice & Behavioural Science team
• Faculty of Science team

Further reading

• << Previous: Annotated bibliography
• Next: Keeping up to date with literature >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 5:05 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

Charles Sturt University is an Australian University, TEQSA Provider Identification: PRV12018. CRICOS Provider: 00005F.

Literature Reviews & Search Strategies

• Defining the Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Choosing Databases

Overview of Search Strategies

Search strategies, subject searching, example: iteratively developing + using keywords, demonstration: developing keywords from a question, demonstration: an advanced search.

• Organizing Your Literature
• Books: Research Design & Scholarly Writing
• Recommended Tutorials

There are many ways to find literature for your review, and we recommend that you use a combination of strategies - keeping in mind that you're going to be searching multiple times in a variety of ways, using different databases and resources. Searching the literature is not a straightforward, linear process - it's iterative (translation: you'll search multiple times, modifying your strategies as you go, and sometimes it'll be frustrating). 

• Known Item Searching
• Citation Jumping

Some form of a keyword search is the way most of us get at scholarly articles in database - it's a great approach! Make sure you're familiar with these librarian strategies to get the most out of your searches.

Figuring out the best keywords for your research topic/question is a process - you'll start with one or a few words and then shift, adapt, and expand them as you start finding source that describe the topic using other words. Your search terms are the bridge between known topics and the unknowns of your research question - so sometimes one specific word will be enough, sometimes you'll need several different words to describe a concept AND you'll need to connect that concept to a second (and/or third) concept.

The number and specificity of your search terms depend on your topic and the scope of your literature review.

Connect Keywords Using Boolean

Make the database work more.

...uses the asterisk (*) to end a word at its core, allowing you to retrieve many more documents containing variations of the search term.  Example: educat* will find educate, educates, education, educators, educating and more.

Phrase Searching

...is when you put quotations marks around two or more words, so that the database looks for those words in that exact order. Examples: "higher education," "public health" and "pharmaceutical industry."

Controlled Vocabulary

... is when you use the terms the database uses to describe what each article is about as search terms. Searching using controlled vocabularies is a great way to get at everything on a topic in a database.  

Databases and search engines are probably going to bring back a lot of results - more than a human can realistically go through. Instead of trying to manually read and sort them all, use the filters in each database to remove the stuff you wouldn't use anyway (ie it's outside the scope of your project).

To make sure you're consistent between searches and databases, write down the filters you're using.

A Few Filters to Try

Once you know you have a good article , there are a lot of useful parts to it - far beyond the content.

Not sure where to start? Try course readings and other required materials.

Useful Parts of a Good Article

Ways to use citations.

• Interactive Tutorial: Searching Cited and Citing Practice starting your search at an article and using the references to gather additional sources.

Your search results don't have to be frozen in the moment you search! There are a few things you can set up to keep your search going automatically.

Searching using subject headings is a comprehensive search strategy that requires some planning and topic knowledge. Work through this PubMed tutorial for an introduction to this important approach to searching.

Through these videos and the accompanying PDF, you'll see an example of starting with a potential research question and developing search terms through brainstorming and keyword searching.

• Slidedeck: Keywords and Advanced Search PowerPoint slides to accompany the two demonstration videos on developing keywords from a question, and doing an advanced search.
• << Previous: Choosing Databases
• Next: Organizing Your Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jun 14, 2023 11:18 AM
• URL: https://mcphs.libguides.com/litreviews

• Open access
• Published: 14 August 2018

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies

• Chris Cooper   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0864-5607 1 ,
• Andrew Booth 2 ,
• Jo Varley-Campbell 1 ,
• Nicky Britten 3 &
• Ruth Garside 4  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  18 , Article number:  85 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

202k Accesses

203 Citations

118 Altmetric

Metrics details

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.

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.

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.

Peer Review reports

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 review stakeholders 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. This is in contrast to the information science literature, which has developed information processing models as an explicit basis for dialogue and empirical testing. Without an explicit model, research in the process of systematic literature searching will remain immature and potentially uneven, and the development of shared information models will be assumed but never articulated.

One way of developing such a conceptual model is by formally examining the implicit “programme theory” as embodied in key methodological texts. The aim of this review is therefore to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process in systematic reviews can be detected across guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported and supported.

Identifying guidance

Key texts (henceforth referred to as “guidance”) were identified based upon their accessibility to, and prominence within, United Kingdom systematic reviewing practice. The United Kingdom occupies a prominent position in the science of health information retrieval, as quantified by such objective measures as the authorship of papers, the number of Cochrane groups based in the UK, membership and leadership of groups such as the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group, the HTA-I Information Specialists’ Group and historic association with such centres as the UK Cochrane Centre, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Coupled with the linguistic dominance of English within medical and health science and the science of systematic reviews more generally, this offers a justification for a purposive sample that favours UK, European and Australian guidance documents.

Nine guidance documents were identified. These documents provide guidance for different types of reviews, namely: reviews of interventions, reviews of health technologies, reviews of qualitative research studies, reviews of social science topics, and reviews to inform guidance.

Whilst these guidance documents occasionally offer additional guidance on other types of systematic reviews, we have focused on the core and stated aims of these documents as they relate to literature searching. Table  1 sets out: the guidance document, the version audited, their core stated focus, and a bibliographical pointer to the main guidance relating to literature searching.

Once a list of key guidance documents was determined, it was checked by six senior information professionals based in the UK for relevance to current literature searching in systematic reviews.

Identifying supporting studies

In addition to identifying guidance, the authors sought to populate an evidence base of supporting studies (henceforth referred to as “studies”) that contribute to existing search practice. Studies were first identified by the authors from their knowledge on this topic area and, subsequently, through systematic citation chasing key studies (‘pearls’ [ 1 ]) located within each key stage of the search process. These studies are identified in Additional file  1 : Appendix Table 1. Citation chasing was conducted by analysing the bibliography of references for each study (backwards citation chasing) and through Google Scholar (forward citation chasing). A search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter was undertaken in August 2017 (see Additional file 1 ). The search terms used were: (literature search*[Title/Abstract]) AND sysrev_methods[sb] and 586 results were returned. These results were sifted for relevance to the key stages in Fig.  1 by CC.

The key stages of literature search guidance as identified from nine key texts

Extracting the data

To reveal the implicit process of literature searching within each guidance document, the relevant sections (chapters) on literature searching were read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. We defined a key methodological stage as a distinct step in the overall process for which specific guidance is reported, and action is taken, that collectively would result in a completed literature search.

The chapter or section sub-heading for each methodological stage was extracted into a table using the exact language as reported in each guidance document. The lead author (CC) then read and re-read these data, and the paragraphs of the document to which the headings referred, summarising section details. This table was then reviewed, using comparison and contrast to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance. Consensus across multiple guidelines was used to inform selection of ‘key stages’ in the process of literature searching.

Having determined the key stages to literature searching, we then read and re-read the sections relating to literature searching again, extracting specific detail relating to the methodological process of literature searching within each key stage. Again, the guidance was then read and re-read, first on a document-by-document-basis and, secondly, across all the documents above, to identify both commonalities and areas of unique guidance.

Results and discussion

Our findings.

We were able to identify consensus across the guidance on literature searching for systematic reviews suggesting a shared implicit model within the information retrieval community. Whilst the structure of the guidance varies between documents, the same key stages are reported, even where the core focus of each document is different. We were able to identify specific areas of unique guidance, where a document reported guidance not summarised in other documents, together with areas of consensus across guidance.

Unique guidance

Only one document provided guidance on the topic of when to stop searching [ 2 ]. This guidance from 2005 anticipates a topic of increasing importance with the current interest in time-limited (i.e. “rapid”) reviews. Quality assurance (or peer review) of literature searches was only covered in two guidance documents [ 3 , 4 ]. This topic has emerged as increasingly important as indicated by the development of the PRESS instrument [ 5 ]. Text mining was discussed in four guidance documents [ 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] where the automation of some manual review work may offer efficiencies in literature searching [ 8 ].

Agreement between guidance: Defining the key stages of literature searching

Where there was agreement on the process, we determined that this constituted a key stage in the process of literature searching to inform systematic reviews.

From the guidance, we determined eight key stages that relate specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. These are summarised at Fig. 1 . The data extraction table to inform Fig. 1 is reported in Table  2 . Table 2 reports the areas of common agreement and it demonstrates that the language used to describe key stages and processes varies significantly between guidance documents.

For each key stage, we set out the specific guidance, followed by discussion on how this guidance is situated within the wider literature.

Key stage one: Deciding who should undertake the literature search

The guidance.

Eight documents provided guidance on who should undertake literature searching in systematic reviews [ 2 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. The guidance affirms that people with relevant expertise of literature searching should ‘ideally’ be included within the review team [ 6 ]. Information specialists (or information scientists), librarians or trial search co-ordinators (TSCs) are indicated as appropriate researchers in six guidance documents [ 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].

How the guidance corresponds to the published studies

The guidance is consistent with studies that call for the involvement of information specialists and librarians in systematic reviews [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ] and which demonstrate how their training as ‘expert searchers’ and ‘analysers and organisers of data’ can be put to good use [ 13 ] in a variety of roles [ 12 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. These arguments make sense in the context of the aims and purposes of literature searching in systematic reviews, explored below. The need for ‘thorough’ and ‘replicable’ literature searches was fundamental to the guidance and recurs in key stage two. Studies have found poor reporting, and a lack of replicable literature searches, to be a weakness in systematic reviews [ 17 , 18 , 27 , 28 ] and they argue that involvement of information specialists/ librarians would be associated with better reporting and better quality literature searching. Indeed, Meert et al. [ 29 ] demonstrated that involving a librarian as a co-author to a systematic review correlated with a higher score in the literature searching component of a systematic review [ 29 ]. As ‘new styles’ of rapid and scoping reviews emerge, where decisions on how to search are more iterative and creative, a clear role is made here too [ 30 ].

Knowing where to search for studies was noted as important in the guidance, with no agreement as to the appropriate number of databases to be searched [ 2 , 6 ]. Database (and resource selection more broadly) is acknowledged as a relevant key skill of information specialists and librarians [ 12 , 15 , 16 , 31 ].

Whilst arguments for including information specialists and librarians in the process of systematic review might be considered self-evident, Koffel and Rethlefsen [ 31 ] have questioned if the necessary involvement is actually happening [ 31 ].

Key stage two: Determining the aim and purpose of a literature search

The aim: Five of the nine guidance documents use adjectives such as ‘thorough’, ‘comprehensive’, ‘transparent’ and ‘reproducible’ to define the aim of literature searching [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Analogous phrases were present in a further three guidance documents, namely: ‘to identify the best available evidence’ [ 4 ] or ‘the aim of the literature search is not to retrieve everything. It is to retrieve everything of relevance’ [ 2 ] or ‘A systematic literature search aims to identify all publications relevant to the particular research question’ [ 3 ]. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual was the only guidance document where a clear statement on the aim of literature searching could not be identified. The purpose of literature searching was defined in three guidance documents, namely to minimise bias in the resultant review [ 6 , 8 , 10 ]. Accordingly, eight of nine documents clearly asserted that thorough and comprehensive literature searches are required as a potential mechanism for minimising bias.

The need for thorough and comprehensive literature searches appears as uniform within the eight guidance documents that describe approaches to literature searching in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Reviews of effectiveness (of intervention or cost), accuracy and prognosis, require thorough and comprehensive literature searches to transparently produce a reliable estimate of intervention effect. The belief that all relevant studies have been ‘comprehensively’ identified, and that this process has been ‘transparently’ reported, increases confidence in the estimate of effect and the conclusions that can be drawn [ 32 ]. The supporting literature exploring the need for comprehensive literature searches focuses almost exclusively on reviews of intervention effectiveness and meta-analysis. Different ‘styles’ of review may have different standards however; the alternative, offered by purposive sampling, has been suggested in the specific context of qualitative evidence syntheses [ 33 ].

What is a comprehensive literature search?

Whilst the guidance calls for thorough and comprehensive literature searches, it lacks clarity on what constitutes a thorough and comprehensive literature search, beyond the implication that all of the literature search methods in Table 2 should be used to identify studies. Egger et al. [ 34 ], in an empirical study evaluating the importance of comprehensive literature searches for trials in systematic reviews, defined a comprehensive search for trials as:

a search not restricted to English language;

where Cochrane CENTRAL or at least two other electronic databases had been searched (such as MEDLINE or EMBASE); and

at least one of the following search methods has been used to identify unpublished trials: searches for (I) conference abstracts, (ii) theses, (iii) trials registers; and (iv) contacts with experts in the field [ 34 ].

Tricco et al. (2008) used a similar threshold of bibliographic database searching AND a supplementary search method in a review when examining the risk of bias in systematic reviews. Their criteria were: one database (limited using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS)) and handsearching [ 35 ].

Together with the guidance, this would suggest that comprehensive literature searching requires the use of BOTH bibliographic database searching AND supplementary search methods.

Comprehensiveness in literature searching, in the sense of how much searching should be undertaken, remains unclear. Egger et al. recommend that ‘investigators should consider the type of literature search and degree of comprehension that is appropriate for the review in question, taking into account budget and time constraints’ [ 34 ]. This view tallies with the Cochrane Handbook, which stipulates clearly, that study identification should be undertaken ‘within resource limits’ [ 9 ]. This would suggest that the limitations to comprehension are recognised but it raises questions on how this is decided and reported [ 36 ].

What is the point of comprehensive literature searching?

The purpose of thorough and comprehensive literature searches is to avoid missing key studies and to minimize bias [ 6 , 8 , 10 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 39 ] since a systematic review based only on published (or easily accessible) studies may have an exaggerated effect size [ 35 ]. Felson (1992) sets out potential biases that could affect the estimate of effect in a meta-analysis [ 40 ] and Tricco et al. summarize the evidence concerning bias and confounding in systematic reviews [ 35 ]. Egger et al. point to non-publication of studies, publication bias, language bias and MEDLINE bias, as key biases [ 34 , 35 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. Comprehensive searches are not the sole factor to mitigate these biases but their contribution is thought to be significant [ 2 , 32 , 34 ]. Fehrmann (2011) suggests that ‘the search process being described in detail’ and that, where standard comprehensive search techniques have been applied, increases confidence in the search results [ 32 ].

Does comprehensive literature searching work?

Egger et al., and other study authors, have demonstrated a change in the estimate of intervention effectiveness where relevant studies were excluded from meta-analysis [ 34 , 47 ]. This would suggest that missing studies in literature searching alters the reliability of effectiveness estimates. This is an argument for comprehensive literature searching. Conversely, Egger et al. found that ‘comprehensive’ searches still missed studies and that comprehensive searches could, in fact, introduce bias into a review rather than preventing it, through the identification of low quality studies then being included in the meta-analysis [ 34 ]. Studies query if identifying and including low quality or grey literature studies changes the estimate of effect [ 43 , 48 ] and question if time is better invested updating systematic reviews rather than searching for unpublished studies [ 49 ], or mapping studies for review as opposed to aiming for high sensitivity in literature searching [ 50 ].

Aim and purpose beyond reviews of effectiveness

The need for comprehensive literature searches is less certain in reviews of qualitative studies, and for reviews where a comprehensive identification of studies is difficult to achieve (for example, in Public health) [ 33 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. Literature searching for qualitative studies, and in public health topics, typically generates a greater number of studies to sift than in reviews of effectiveness [ 39 ] and demonstrating the ‘value’ of studies identified or missed is harder [ 56 ], since the study data do not typically support meta-analysis. Nussbaumer-Streit et al. (2016) have registered a review protocol to assess whether abbreviated literature searches (as opposed to comprehensive literature searches) has an impact on conclusions across multiple bodies of evidence, not only on effect estimates [ 57 ] which may develop this understanding. It may be that decision makers and users of systematic reviews are willing to trade the certainty from a comprehensive literature search and systematic review in exchange for different approaches to evidence synthesis [ 58 ], and that comprehensive literature searches are not necessarily a marker of literature search quality, as previously thought [ 36 ]. Different approaches to literature searching [ 37 , 38 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ] and developing the concept of when to stop searching are important areas for further study [ 36 , 59 ].

The study by Nussbaumer-Streit et al. has been published since the submission of this literature review [ 63 ]. Nussbaumer-Streit et al. (2018) conclude that abbreviated literature searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses, if decision-makers are willing to trade the certainty from a comprehensive literature search and systematic review, but that decision-making which demands detailed scrutiny should still be based on comprehensive literature searches [ 63 ].

Key stage three: Preparing for the literature search

Six documents provided guidance on preparing for a literature search [ 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 ]. The Cochrane Handbook clearly stated that Cochrane authors (i.e. researchers) should seek advice from a trial search co-ordinator (i.e. a person with specific skills in literature searching) ‘before’ starting a literature search [ 9 ].

Two key tasks were perceptible in preparing for a literature searching [ 2 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 ]. First, to determine if there are any existing or on-going reviews, or if a new review is justified [ 6 , 11 ]; and, secondly, to develop an initial literature search strategy to estimate the volume of relevant literature (and quality of a small sample of relevant studies [ 10 ]) and indicate the resources required for literature searching and the review of the studies that follows [ 7 , 10 ].

Three documents summarised guidance on where to search to determine if a new review was justified [ 2 , 6 , 11 ]. These focused on searching databases of systematic reviews (The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)), institutional registries (including PROSPERO), and MEDLINE [ 6 , 11 ]. It is worth noting, however, that as of 2015, DARE (and NHS EEDs) are no longer being updated and so the relevance of this (these) resource(s) will diminish over-time [ 64 ]. One guidance document, ‘Systematic reviews in the Social Sciences’, noted, however, that databases are not the only source of information and unpublished reports, conference proceeding and grey literature may also be required, depending on the nature of the review question [ 2 ].

Two documents reported clearly that this preparation (or ‘scoping’) exercise should be undertaken before the actual search strategy is developed [ 7 , 10 ]).

The guidance offers the best available source on preparing the literature search with the published studies not typically reporting how their scoping informed the development of their search strategies nor how their search approaches were developed. Text mining has been proposed as a technique to develop search strategies in the scoping stages of a review although this work is still exploratory [ 65 ]. ‘Clustering documents’ and word frequency analysis have also been tested to identify search terms and studies for review [ 66 , 67 ]. Preparing for literature searches and scoping constitutes an area for future research.

Key stage four: Designing the search strategy

The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) structure was the commonly reported structure promoted to design a literature search strategy. Five documents suggested that the eligibility criteria or review question will determine which concepts of PICO will be populated to develop the search strategy [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. The NICE handbook promoted multiple structures, namely PICO, SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) and multi-stranded approaches [ 4 ].

With the exclusion of The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual, the guidance offered detail on selecting key search terms, synonyms, Boolean language, selecting database indexing terms and combining search terms. The CEE handbook suggested that ‘search terms may be compiled with the help of the commissioning organisation and stakeholders’ [ 10 ].

The use of limits, such as language or date limits, were discussed in all documents [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].

Search strategy structure

The guidance typically relates to reviews of intervention effectiveness so PICO – with its focus on intervention and comparator - is the dominant model used to structure literature search strategies [ 68 ]. PICOs – where the S denotes study design - is also commonly used in effectiveness reviews [ 6 , 68 ]. As the NICE handbook notes, alternative models to structure literature search strategies have been developed and tested. Booth provides an overview on formulating questions for evidence based practice [ 69 ] and has developed a number of alternatives to the PICO structure, namely: BeHEMoTh (Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) for use when systematically identifying theory [ 55 ]; SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) for identification of social science and evaluation studies [ 69 ] and, working with Cooke and colleagues, SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) [ 70 ]. SPIDER has been compared to PICO and PICOs in a study by Methley et al. [ 68 ].

The NICE handbook also suggests the use of multi-stranded approaches to developing literature search strategies [ 4 ]. Glanville developed this idea in a study by Whitting et al. [ 71 ] and a worked example of this approach is included in the development of a search filter by Cooper et al. [ 72 ].

Writing search strategies: Conceptual and objective approaches

Hausner et al. [ 73 ] provide guidance on writing literature search strategies, delineating between conceptually and objectively derived approaches. The conceptual approach, advocated by and explained in the guidance documents, relies on the expertise of the literature searcher to identify key search terms and then develop key terms to include synonyms and controlled syntax. Hausner and colleagues set out the objective approach [ 73 ] and describe what may be done to validate it [ 74 ].

The use of limits

The guidance documents offer direction on the use of limits within a literature search. Limits can be used to focus literature searching to specific study designs or by other markers (such as by date) which limits the number of studies returned by a literature search. The use of limits should be described and the implications explored [ 34 ] since limiting literature searching can introduce bias (explored above). Craven et al. have suggested the use of a supporting narrative to explain decisions made in the process of developing literature searches and this advice would usefully capture decisions on the use of search limits [ 75 ].

Key stage five: Determining the process of literature searching and deciding where to search (bibliographic database searching)

Table 2 summarises the process of literature searching as reported in each guidance document. Searching bibliographic databases was consistently reported as the ‘first step’ to literature searching in all nine guidance documents.

Three documents reported specific guidance on where to search, in each case specific to the type of review their guidance informed, and as a minimum requirement [ 4 , 9 , 11 ]. Seven of the key guidance documents suggest that the selection of bibliographic databases depends on the topic of review [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 ], with two documents noting the absence of an agreed standard on what constitutes an acceptable number of databases searched [ 2 , 6 ].

The guidance documents summarise ‘how to’ search bibliographic databases in detail and this guidance is further contextualised above in terms of developing the search strategy. The documents provide guidance of selecting bibliographic databases, in some cases stating acceptable minima (i.e. The Cochrane Handbook states Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE), and in other cases simply listing bibliographic database available to search. Studies have explored the value in searching specific bibliographic databases, with Wright et al. (2015) noting the contribution of CINAHL in identifying qualitative studies [ 76 ], Beckles et al. (2013) questioning the contribution of CINAHL to identifying clinical studies for guideline development [ 77 ], and Cooper et al. (2015) exploring the role of UK-focused bibliographic databases to identify UK-relevant studies [ 78 ]. The host of the database (e.g. OVID or ProQuest) has been shown to alter the search returns offered. Younger and Boddy [ 79 ] report differing search returns from the same database (AMED) but where the ‘host’ was different [ 79 ].

The average number of bibliographic database searched in systematic reviews has risen in the period 1994–2014 (from 1 to 4) [ 80 ] but there remains (as attested to by the guidance) no consensus on what constitutes an acceptable number of databases searched [ 48 ]. This is perhaps because thinking about the number of databases searched is the wrong question, researchers should be focused on which databases were searched and why, and which databases were not searched and why. The discussion should re-orientate to the differential value of sources but researchers need to think about how to report this in studies to allow findings to be generalised. Bethel (2017) has proposed ‘search summaries’, completed by the literature searcher, to record where included studies were identified, whether from database (and which databases specifically) or supplementary search methods [ 81 ]. Search summaries document both yield and accuracy of searches, which could prospectively inform resource use and decisions to search or not to search specific databases in topic areas. The prospective use of such data presupposes, however, that past searches are a potential predictor of future search performance (i.e. that each topic is to be considered representative and not unique). In offering a body of practice, this data would be of greater practicable use than current studies which are considered as little more than individual case studies [ 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 ].

When to database search is another question posed in the literature. Beyer et al. [ 91 ] report that databases can be prioritised for literature searching which, whilst not addressing the question of which databases to search, may at least bring clarity as to which databases to search first [ 91 ]. Paradoxically, this links to studies that suggest PubMed should be searched in addition to MEDLINE (OVID interface) since this improves the currency of systematic reviews [ 92 , 93 ]. Cooper et al. (2017) have tested the idea of database searching not as a primary search method (as suggested in the guidance) but as a supplementary search method in order to manage the volume of studies identified for an environmental effectiveness systematic review. Their case study compared the effectiveness of database searching versus a protocol using supplementary search methods and found that the latter identified more relevant studies for review than searching bibliographic databases [ 94 ].

Key stage six: Determining the process of literature searching and deciding where to search (supplementary search methods)

Table 2 also summaries the process of literature searching which follows bibliographic database searching. As Table 2 sets out, guidance that supplementary literature search methods should be used in systematic reviews recurs across documents, but the order in which these methods are used, and the extent to which they are used, varies. We noted inconsistency in the labelling of supplementary search methods between guidance documents.

Rather than focus on the guidance on how to use the methods (which has been summarised in a recent review [ 95 ]), we focus on the aim or purpose of supplementary search methods.

The Cochrane Handbook reported that ‘efforts’ to identify unpublished studies should be made [ 9 ]. Four guidance documents [ 2 , 3 , 6 , 9 ] acknowledged that searching beyond bibliographic databases was necessary since ‘databases are not the only source of literature’ [ 2 ]. Only one document reported any guidance on determining when to use supplementary methods. The IQWiG handbook reported that the use of handsearching (in their example) could be determined on a ‘case-by-case basis’ which implies that the use of these methods is optional rather than mandatory. This is in contrast to the guidance (above) on bibliographic database searching.

The issue for supplementary search methods is similar in many ways to the issue of searching bibliographic databases: demonstrating value. The purpose and contribution of supplementary search methods in systematic reviews is increasingly acknowledged [ 37 , 61 , 62 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 ] but understanding the value of the search methods to identify studies and data is unclear. In a recently published review, Cooper et al. (2017) reviewed the literature on supplementary search methods looking to determine the advantages, disadvantages and resource implications of using supplementary search methods [ 95 ]. This review also summarises the key guidance and empirical studies and seeks to address the question on when to use these search methods and when not to [ 95 ]. The guidance is limited in this regard and, as Table 2 demonstrates, offers conflicting advice on the order of searching, and the extent to which these search methods should be used in systematic reviews.

Key stage seven: Managing the references

Five of the documents provided guidance on managing references, for example downloading, de-duplicating and managing the output of literature searches [ 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 ]. This guidance typically itemised available bibliographic management tools rather than offering guidance on how to use them specifically [ 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 ]. The CEE handbook provided guidance on importing data where no direct export option is available (e.g. web-searching) [ 10 ].

The literature on using bibliographic management tools is not large relative to the number of ‘how to’ videos on platforms such as YouTube (see for example [ 102 ]). These YouTube videos confirm the overall lack of ‘how to’ guidance identified in this study and offer useful instruction on managing references. Bramer et al. set out methods for de-duplicating data and reviewing references in Endnote [ 103 , 104 ] and Gall tests the direct search function within Endnote to access databases such as PubMed, finding a number of limitations [ 105 ]. Coar et al. and Ahmed et al. consider the role of the free-source tool, Zotero [ 106 , 107 ]. Managing references is a key administrative function in the process of review particularly for documenting searches in PRISMA guidance.

Key stage eight: Documenting the search

The Cochrane Handbook was the only guidance document to recommend a specific reporting guideline: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [ 9 ]. Six documents provided guidance on reporting the process of literature searching with specific criteria to report [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. There was consensus on reporting: the databases searched (and the host searched by), the search strategies used, and any use of limits (e.g. date, language, search filters (The CRD handbook called for these limits to be justified [ 6 ])). Three guidance documents reported that the number of studies identified should be recorded [ 3 , 6 , 10 ]. The number of duplicates identified [ 10 ], the screening decisions [ 3 ], a comprehensive list of grey literature sources searched (and full detail for other supplementary search methods) [ 8 ], and an annotation of search terms tested but not used [ 4 ] were identified as unique items in four documents.

The Cochrane Handbook was the only guidance document to note that the full search strategies for each database should be included in the Additional file 1 of the review [ 9 ].

All guidance documents should ultimately deliver completed systematic reviews that fulfil the requirements of the PRISMA reporting guidelines [ 108 ]. The guidance broadly requires the reporting of data that corresponds with the requirements of the PRISMA statement although documents typically ask for diverse and additional items [ 108 ]. In 2008, Sampson et al. observed a lack of consensus on reporting search methods in systematic reviews [ 109 ] and this remains the case as of 2017, as evidenced in the guidance documents, and in spite of the publication of the PRISMA guidelines in 2009 [ 110 ]. It is unclear why the collective guidance does not more explicitly endorse adherence to the PRISMA guidance.

Reporting of literature searching is a key area in systematic reviews since it sets out clearly what was done and how the conclusions of the review can be believed [ 52 , 109 ]. Despite strong endorsement in the guidance documents, specifically supported in PRISMA guidance, and other related reporting standards too (such as ENTREQ for qualitative evidence synthesis, STROBE for reviews of observational studies), authors still highlight the prevalence of poor standards of literature search reporting [ 31 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 ]. To explore issues experienced by authors in reporting literature searches, and look at uptake of PRISMA, Radar et al. [ 120 ] surveyed over 260 review authors to determine common problems and their work summaries the practical aspects of reporting literature searching [ 120 ]. Atkinson et al. [ 121 ] have also analysed reporting standards for literature searching, summarising recommendations and gaps for reporting search strategies [ 121 ].

One area that is less well covered by the guidance, but nevertheless appears in this literature, is the quality appraisal or peer review of literature search strategies. The PRESS checklist is the most prominent and it aims to develop evidence-based guidelines to peer review of electronic search strategies [ 5 , 122 , 123 ]. A corresponding guideline for documentation of supplementary search methods does not yet exist although this idea is currently being explored.

How the reporting of the literature searching process corresponds to critical appraisal tools is an area for further research. In the survey undertaken by Radar et al. (2014), 86% of survey respondents (153/178) identified a need for further guidance on what aspects of the literature search process to report [ 120 ]. The PRISMA statement offers a brief summary of what to report but little practical guidance on how to report it [ 108 ]. Critical appraisal tools for systematic reviews, such as AMSTAR 2 (Shea et al. [ 124 ]) and ROBIS (Whiting et al. [ 125 ]), can usefully be read alongside PRISMA guidance, since they offer greater detail on how the reporting of the literature search will be appraised and, therefore, they offer a proxy on what to report [ 124 , 125 ]. Further research in the form of a study which undertakes a comparison between PRISMA and quality appraisal checklists for systematic reviews would seem to begin addressing the call, identified by Radar et al., for further guidance on what to report [ 120 ].

Limitations

Other handbooks exist.

A potential limitation of this literature review is the focus on guidance produced in Europe (the UK specifically) and Australia. We justify the decision for our selection of the nine guidance documents reviewed in this literature review in section “ Identifying guidance ”. In brief, these nine guidance documents were selected as the most relevant health care guidance that inform UK systematic reviewing practice, given that the UK occupies a prominent position in the science of health information retrieval. We acknowledge the existence of other guidance documents, such as those from North America (e.g. the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [ 126 ], The Institute of Medicine [ 127 ] and the guidance and resources produced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) [ 128 ]). We comment further on this directly below.

The handbooks are potentially linked to one another

What is not clear is the extent to which the guidance documents inter-relate or provide guidance uniquely. The Cochrane Handbook, first published in 1994, is notably a key source of reference in guidance and systematic reviews beyond Cochrane reviews. It is not clear to what extent broadening the sample of guidance handbooks to include North American handbooks, and guidance handbooks from other relevant countries too, would alter the findings of this literature review or develop further support for the process model. Since we cannot be clear, we raise this as a potential limitation of this literature review. On our initial review of a sample of North American, and other, guidance documents (before selecting the guidance documents considered in this review), however, we do not consider that the inclusion of these further handbooks would alter significantly the findings of this literature review.

This is a literature review

A further limitation of this review was that the review of published studies is not a systematic review of the evidence for each key stage. It is possible that other relevant studies could help contribute to the exploration and development of the key stages identified in this review.

This literature review would appear to demonstrate the existence of a shared model of the literature searching process in systematic reviews. We call this model ‘the conventional approach’, since it appears to be common convention in nine different guidance documents.

The findings reported above reveal eight key stages in the process of literature searching for systematic reviews. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents which suggests consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews.

In Table 2 , we demonstrate consensus regarding the application of literature search methods. All guidance documents distinguish between primary and supplementary search methods. Bibliographic database searching is consistently the first method of literature searching referenced in each guidance document. Whilst the guidance uniformly supports the use of supplementary search methods, there is little evidence for a consistent process with diverse guidance across documents. This may reflect differences in the core focus across each document, linked to differences in identifying effectiveness studies or qualitative studies, for instance.

Eight of the nine guidance documents reported on the aims of literature searching. The shared understanding was that literature searching should be thorough and comprehensive in its aim and that this process should be reported transparently so that that it could be reproduced. Whilst only three documents explicitly link this understanding to minimising bias, it is clear that comprehensive literature searching is implicitly linked to ‘not missing relevant studies’ which is approximately the same point.

Defining the key stages in this review helps categorise the scholarship available, and it prioritises areas for development or further study. The supporting studies on preparing for literature searching (key stage three, ‘preparation’) were, for example, comparatively few, and yet this key stage represents a decisive moment in literature searching for systematic reviews. It is where search strategy structure is determined, search terms are chosen or discarded, and the resources to be searched are selected. Information specialists, librarians and researchers, are well placed to develop these and other areas within the key stages we identify.

This review calls for further research to determine the suitability of using the conventional approach. The publication dates of the guidance documents which underpin the conventional approach may raise questions as to whether the process which they each report remains valid for current systematic literature searching. In addition, it may be useful to test whether it is desirable to use the same process model of literature searching for qualitative evidence synthesis as that for reviews of intervention effectiveness, which this literature review demonstrates is presently recommended best practice.

Abbreviations

Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects

Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare

National Institute for Clinical Excellence

Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation

Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology

Trial Search Co-ordinators

Booth A. Unpacking your literature search toolbox: on search styles and tactics. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2008;25(4):313–7.

Article   Google Scholar  

Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2006.

Book   Google Scholar  

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). IQWiG Methods Resources. 7 Information retrieval 2014 [Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385787/ .

NICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/media/default/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/developing-nice-guidelines-the-manual.pdf .

Sampson M. MJ, Lefebvre C, Moher D, Grimshaw J. Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: PRESS; 2008.

Google Scholar  

Centre for Reviews & Dissemination. Systematic reviews – CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009.

eunetha: European Network for Health Technology Assesment Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness 2016. Available from: http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/default/files/Guideline_Information_Retrieval_V1-1.pdf .

Kugley SWA, Thomas J, Mahood Q, Jørgensen AMK, Hammerstrøm K, Sathe N. Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Oslo: Campbell Collaboration. 2017; Available from: https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library/searching-for-studies-information-retrieval-guide-campbell-reviews.html

Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: searching for studies. In: JPT H, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; 2011.

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management.: Environmental Evidence:; 2013. Available from: http://www.environmentalevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Review-guidelines-version-4.2-final-update.pdf .

The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual. 2014th ed: the Joanna Briggs institute; 2014. Available from: https://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/ReviewersManual-2014.pdf

Beverley CA, Booth A, Bath PA. The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. Health Inf Libr J. 2003;20(2):65–74.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Harris MR. The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2005;93(1):81–7.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Egger JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125931.

Li L, Tian J, Tian H, Moher D, Liang F, Jiang T, et al. Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(9):1001–7.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(1):74–80.

Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):617–26.

Weller AC. Mounting evidence that librarians are essential for comprehensive literature searches for meta-analyses and Cochrane reports. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92(2):163–4.

Swinkels A, Briddon J, Hall J. Two physiotherapists, one librarian and a systematic literature review: collaboration in action. Health Info Libr J. 2006;23(4):248–56.

Foster M. An overview of the role of librarians in systematic reviews: from expert search to project manager. EAHIL. 2015;11(3):3–7.

Lawson L. OPERATING OUTSIDE LIBRARY WALLS 2004.

Vassar M, Yerokhin V, Sinnett PM, Weiher M, Muckelrath H, Carr B, et al. Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology. Health Inf Libr J. 2017;34(2):156–64.

Townsend WA, Anderson PF, Ginier EC, MacEachern MP, Saylor KM, Shipman BL, et al. A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2017;105(3):268–75.

Cooper ID, Crum JA. New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: a systematic review, 1990-2012. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2013;101(4):268–77.

Crum JA, Cooper ID. Emerging roles for biomedical librarians: a survey of current practice, challenges, and changes. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2013;101(4):278–86.

Dudden RF, Protzko SL. The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian. Med Ref Serv Q. 2011;30(3):301–15.

Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh HM. Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(5):440–8.

Maggio LA, Tannery NH, Kanter SL. Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2011;86(8):1049–54.

Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2016;104(4):267–77.

Morris M, Boruff JT, Gore GC. Scoping reviews: establishing the role of the librarian. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2016;104(4):346–54.

Koffel JB, Rethlefsen ML. Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163309.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Fehrmann P, Thomas J. Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods. 2011;2(1):15–32.

Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1):74.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2003;7(1):1–76.

Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Fergusson D, Cogo E, Horsley T, et al. Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(5):422–34.

Booth A. How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(4):431–5.

Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, Booth A, Wong R. Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Inf Libr J. 2010;27(2):114–22.

Petticrew M. Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from ‘what works’ to ‘what happens’. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(1):36.

Betrán AP, Say L, Gülmezoglu AM, 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. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5

Felson DT. Bias in meta-analytic research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(8):885–92.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science. 2014;345(6203):1502–5.

Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, 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. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):64.

Schmucker CM, Blümle A, Schell LK, Schwarzer G, Oeller P, Cabrera L, et al. Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0176210.

Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet (London, England). 1997;350(9074):326–9.

Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2003;7(41):1–90.

Pham B, Klassen TP, Lawson ML, Moher D. Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(8):769–76.

Mills EJ, Kanters S, Thorlund K, Chaimani A, Veroniki A-A, Ioannidis JPA. The effects of excluding treatments from network meta-analyses: survey. BMJ : British Medical Journal. 2013;347

Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):127.

van Driel ML, De Sutter A, De Maeseneer J, Christiaens T. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(8):838–44.e3.

Buchberger B, Krabbe L, Lux B, Mattivi JT. Evidence mapping for decision making: feasibility versus accuracy - when to abandon high sensitivity in electronic searches. German medical science : GMS e-journal. 2016;14: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. Research Synthesis Methods. 2012;3(1):1–10.

Gough D. Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Res Pap Educ. 2007;22(2):213–28.

Barroso J, Gollop CJ, Sandelowski M, Meynell J, Pearce PF, Collins LJ. The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25(2):153–78.

Britten N, Garside R, Pope C, Frost J, Cooper C. Asking more of qualitative synthesis: a response to Sally Thorne. Qual Health Res. 2017;27(9):1370–6.

Booth A, Carroll C. Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Info Libr J. 2015;32(3):220–35.

Kwon Y, Powelson SE, Wong H, Ghali WA, Conly JM. 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. Syst Rev. 2014;3:135.

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. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5:197.

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. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):121.

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? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(9):804–8.

Royle P, Milne R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19(4):591–603.

Pearson M, Moxham T, Ashton K. Effectiveness of search strategies for qualitative research about barriers and facilitators of program delivery. Eval Health Prof. 2011;34(3):297–308.

Levay P, Raynor M, Tuvey D. The Contributions of MEDLINE, Other Bibliographic Databases and Various Search Techniques to NICE Public Health Guidance. 2015. 2015;10(1):19.

Nussbaumer-Streit B, Klerings I, Wagner G, Heise TL, Dobrescu AI, Armijo-Olivo S, et al. Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;102:1–11.

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. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(3):256–7.

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 KW, Dale J. Search terms and a validated brief search filter to retrieve publications on health-related values in Medline: a word frequency analysis study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. 2012;19(3):479–88.

Stansfield C, Thomas J, Kavanagh J. 'Clustering' documents automatically to support scoping reviews of research: a case study. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(3):230–41.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Methley AM, 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. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:579.

Andrew B. Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech. 2006;24(3):355–68.

Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1435–43.

Whiting P, Westwood M, Bojke L, Palmer S, Richardson G, Cooper J, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic review and economic model. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2006;10(36):iii-iv, xi-xiii, 1–154.

Cooper C, Levay P, Lorenc T, Craig GM. A population search filter for hard-to-reach populations increased search efficiency for a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(5):554–9.

Hausner E, Waffenschmidt S, Kaiser T, Simon M. Routine development of objectively derived search strategies. Systematic Reviews. 2012;1(1):19.

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. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;77:118–24.

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. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2011;6(4):72–87.

Wright K, Golder S, Lewis-Light K. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? Syst Rev. 2015;4:104.

Beckles Z, Glover S, Ashe J, Stockton S, Boynton J, Lai R, et al. Searching CINAHL did not add value to clinical questions posed in NICE guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):1051–7.

Cooper C, Rogers M, Bethel A, Briscoe S, Lowe J. A mapping review of the literature on UK-focused health and social care databases. Health Inf Libr J. 2015;32(1):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. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):126–35.

Lam MT, McDiarmid M. Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2016;104(4):284–9.

Bethel A, editor Search summary tables for systematic reviews: results and findings. HLC Conference 2017a.

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? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):161.

Adams CE, Frederick K. An investigation of the adequacy of MEDLINE searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effects of mental health care. Psychol Med. 1994;24(3):741–8.

Kelly L, St Pierre-Hansen N. So many databases, such little clarity: searching the literature for the topic aboriginal. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien. 2008;54(11):1572–3.

Lawrence DW. What is lost when searching only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion? Injury Prevention. 2008;14(6):401–4.

Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, Stoto MA, Colditz GA. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(9):867–73.

Sampson M, Barrowman NJ, Moher D, Klassen TP, Pham B, Platt R, et al. Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(10):943–55.

Stevinson C, Lawlor DA. Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns? Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 2004;12(4):228–32.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(5):476–87.

Taylor B, Wylie E, Dempster M, Donnelly M. Systematically retrieving research: a case study evaluating seven databases. Res Soc Work Pract. 2007;17(6):697–706.

Beyer FR, Wright K. Can we prioritise which databases to search? A case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. Health Info Libr J. 2013;30(1):49–58.

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. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2016;104(4):309–12.

Katchamart W, Faulkner A, Feldman B, Tomlinson G, Bombardier C. PubMed had a higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE in the search for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(7):805–7.

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). Research Synthesis Methods. 2017;

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. (In Press). BMC Systematic Reviews. 2017.

Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2005;331(7524):1064–5.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hinde S, Spackman E. Bidirectional citation searching to completion: an exploration of literature searching methods. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(1):5–11.

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. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(1):34–45.

McManus RJ, Wilson S, Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Hyde CJ, Tobias RS, et al. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1998;317(7172):1562–3.

Westphal A, Kriston L, Holzel LP, 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. Journal of public health research. 2014;3(2):177.

Matthews EJ, Edwards AG, Barker J, Bloor M, Covey J, Hood K, et al. Efficient literature searching in diffuse topics: lessons from a systematic review of research on communicating risk to patients in primary care. Health Libr Rev. 1999;16(2):112–20.

Bethel A. Endnote Training (YouTube Videos) 2017b [Available from: http://medicine.exeter.ac.uk/esmi/workstreams/informationscience/is_resources,_guidance_&_advice/ .

Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2016;104(3):240–3.

Bramer WM, Milic J, Mast F. Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2017;105(1):84–7.

Gall C, Brahmi FA. Retrieval comparison of EndNote to search MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed) versus searching them directly. Medical reference services quarterly. 2004;23(3):25–32.

Ahmed KK, Al Dhubaib BE. Zotero: a bibliographic assistant to researcher. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011;2(4):303–5.

Coar JT, Sewell JP. Zotero: harnessing the power of a personal bibliographic manager. Nurse Educ. 2010;35(5):205–7.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

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

Toews LC. Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2017;105(3):233–9.

Booth A. "brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2006;94(4):421–9. e205

Faggion CM Jr, Wu YC, Tu YK, Wasiak J. Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery. Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1062):20150878.

Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz N, Lyles CM. Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000–2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible? Research Synthesis Methods. 2014;5(2):116–30.

Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, Anderson MJ, Wellik KE. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2009;97(1):21–9.

Bigna JJ, Um LN, Nansseu JR. 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. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):174.

Akhigbe T, Zolnourian A, Bulters D. Compliance of systematic reviews articles in brain arteriovenous malformation with PRISMA statement guidelines: review of literature. Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2017;39:45–8.

Tao KM, Li XQ, Zhou QH, Moher D, Ling CQ, Yu WF. From QUOROM to PRISMA: a survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27611.

Wasiak J, Tyack Z, Ware R. Goodwin N. Jr. Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management. International wound journal: Faggion CM; 2016.

Tam WW, Lo KK, Khalechelvam P. Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e013905.

Rader T, Mann M, Stansfield C, Cooper C, Sampson M. Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of common issues. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(2):98–115.

Atkinson KM, Koenka AC, Sanchez CE, Moshontz H, Cooper H. Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(1):87–95.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

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. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):944–52.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2017;358.

Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JPT, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–34.

Relevo R, Balshem H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1168–77.

Medicine Io. Standards for Systematic Reviews 2011 [Available from: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx .

CADTH: Resources 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

CC acknowledges the supervision offered by Professor Chris Hyde.

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.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK

Chris Cooper & Jo Varley-Campbell

HEDS, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Andrew Booth

Nicky Britten

European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, UK

Ruth Garside

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CC conceived the idea for this study and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. CC discussed this publication in PhD supervision with AB and separately with JVC. CC revised the publication with input and comments from AB, JVC, RG and NB. All authors revised the manuscript prior to submission. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Cooper .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

Appendix tables and PubMed search strategy. Key studies used for pearl growing per key stage, working data extraction tables and the PubMed search strategy. (DOCX 30 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J. et al. Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 18 , 85 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3

Download citation

Received : 20 September 2017

Accepted : 06 August 2018

Published : 14 August 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Literature Search Process
• Citation Chasing
• Tacit Models
• Unique Guidance
• Information Specialists

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• UNC Libraries
• HSL Academic Process
• Searching PubMed
• Literature Reviews

Searching PubMed: Literature Reviews

Created by health science librarians.

• Basic Searches
• Filters and Narrowing Searches
• Find Full-Text Articles
• Save Search Results
• Saving Searches & Creating Alerts
• My NCBI Accounts

Section Objective

What is a literature review, clearly stated research question, search terms, searching worksheets, boolean and / or.

The content in the Literature Review section defines the literature review purpose and process, explains using the PICO format to ask a clear research question, and demonstrates how to evaluate and modify search results to improve the accuracy of the retrieval.

A literature review seeks to identify, analyze and summarize the published research literature about a specific topic.  Literature reviews are assigned as course projects; included as the introductory part of master's and PhD theses; and are conducted before undertaking any new scientific research project.

The purpose of a literature review is to establish what is currently known about a specific topic and to evaluate the strength of the evidence upon which that knowledge is based. A review of a clinical topic may identify implications for clinical practice. Literature reviews also identify areas of a topic that need further research.

A systematic review is a literature review that follows a rigorous process to find all of the research conducted on a topic and then critically appraises the research methods of the highest quality reports. These reviews track and report their search and appraisal methods in addition to providing a summary of the knowledge established by the appraised research.

The UNC Writing Center provides a nice summary of what to consider when writing a literature review for a class assignment. The online book, Doing a literature review in health and social care : a practical guide (2010), is a good resource for more information on this topic.

Obviously, the quality of the search process will determine the quality of all literature reviews. Anyone undertaking a literature review on a new topic would benefit from meeting with a librarian to discuss search strategies. A consultaiton with a librarian is strongly recommended for anyone undertaking a systematic review.

Use the email form on our Ask a Librarian page to arrange a meeting with a librarian.

The first step to a successful literature review search is to state your research question as clearly as possible.

It is important to:

• be as specific as possible
• include all aspects of your question

Clinical and social science questions often have these aspects (PICO):

• People/population/problem  (What are the characteristics of the population?  What is the condition or disease?)
• Intervention (What do you want to do with this patient?  i.e. treat, diagnose)
• Comparisons [not always included]  (What is the alternative to this intervention?  i.e. placebo, different drug, surgery)
• Outcomes  (What are the relevant outcomes?  i.e. morbidity, death, complications)

If the PICO model does not fit your question, try to use other ways to help be sure to articulate all parts of your question. Perhaps asking yourself Who, What, Why, How will help.  

Example Question:  Is acupuncture as effective of a therapy as triptans in the treament of adult migraine?

Note that this question fits the PICO model.

• Population: Adults with migraines
• Intervention: Acupuncture
• Comparison: Triptans/tryptamines
• Outcome: Fewer Headache days, Fewer migraines

A literature review search is an iterative process. Your goal is to find all of the articles that are pertinent to your subject. Successful searching requires you to think about the complexity of language. You need to match the words you use in your search to the words used by article authors and database indexers. A thorough PubMed search must identify the author words likely to be in the title and abstract or the indexer's selected MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) Terms.

Start by doing a preliminary search using the words from the key parts of your research question.

Step #1: Initial Search

Enter the key concepts from your research question combined with the Boolean operator AND. PubMed does automatically combine your terms with AND. However, it can be easier to modify your search if you start by including the Boolean operators.

migraine AND acupuncture AND tryptamines

The search retrieves a number of relevant article records, but probably not everything on the topic.

Step #2: Evaluate Results

Use the Display Settings drop down in the upper left hand corner of the results page to change to Abstract display.

Review the results and move articles that are directly related to your topic to the Clipboard .

Go to the Clipboard to examine the language in the articles that are directly related to your topic.

• look for words in the titles and abstracts of these pertinent articles that differ from the words you used
• look for relevant MeSH terms in the list linked at the bottom of each article

The following two articles were selected from the search results and placed on the Clipboard.

Here are word differences to consider:

• Initial search used acupuncture. MeSH Terms use Acupuncture therapy.
• Initial search used migraine.  Related word from MeSH Terms is Migraine without Aura and Migraine Disorders.
• Initial search used tryptamines. Article title uses sumatriptan. Related word from MeSH is Sumatriptan or Tryptamines.

With this knowledge you can reformulate your search to expand your retrieval, adding synonyms for all concepts except for manual and plaque.

#3 Revise Search

Use the Boolean OR operator to group synonyms together and use parentheses around the OR groups so they will be searched properly. See the image below to review the difference between Boolean OR / Boolean AND.

Here is what the new search looks like:

(migraine OR migraine disorders) AND (acupuncture OR acupuncture therapy) AND (tryptamines OR sumatriptan)

• Search Worksheet Example: Acupuncture vs. Triptans for Migraine
• Search Worksheet

• << Previous: My NCBI Accounts
• Last Updated: Dec 19, 2023 3:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/search-pubmed

Search & Find

• E-Research by Discipline
• More Search & Find

Places & Spaces

• Places to Study
• Book a Study Room
• Printers, Scanners, & Computers
• More Places & Spaces
• Borrowing & Circulation
• Request a Title for Purchase
• Schedule Instruction Session
• More Services

Support & Guides

• Course Reserves
• Research Guides
• Citing & Writing
• More Support & Guides
• Mission Statement
• Diversity Statement
• Staff Directory
• Job Opportunities
• Give to the Libraries
• News & Exhibits
• Reckoning Initiative
• More About Us

• Search This Site
• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility
• Give Us Your Feedback
• 208 Raleigh Street CB #3916
• Chapel Hill, NC 27515-8890
• 919-962-1053

Literature Reviews

• Steps to Writing a Lit Review
• Topic Selection

Suggested Tutorials

Identifying keywords & search terms, keyword tips, link keywords effectively (boolean searching), what are keywords, resources for instructors.

• Advanced Search Techniques
• Government Information
• Find Images This link opens in a new window
• News & Journalism
• Evaluating Information Sources This link opens in a new window
• Citation Style Help This link opens in a new window
• Citation Management

Email Us

Icons from Font Awesome under CC 4.0 Attribution License

• Identifying Keywords
• Choosing and Using Keywords: Credo Tutorial

Identify Keywords

To identify keywords, first start by writing out your research statement or question. Then follow these steps:

• Start by writing your research question, or thesis statement.
• Example: Are  social media  users concerned about their personal  privacy ? 
• NOTE: You can always add in search terms later, so try starting with fewer terms. 
• Example synonyms: concern, worry

Searching with keywords

Example search: ( "Social Media" OR "social network") AND (privacy OR "personal privacy") AND (concern OR worry)

·   As you search you may find more -or better- keywords & synonyms to use, or different spellings... play around with keywords and different combinations to see what is most useful

·   Use AND to link different concepts and keywords together

·   Use OR to group synonyms, or similar concepts together in parentheses

·   Use quotation marks to search for specific phrases , or key words with two or more words

• Try different search terms
• Go into Advanced Search to search by topic, such as "nuclear power," then create another subject box to add a second term of "history" or other terms that make sense for your interest.
• Most databases will allow you to check various boxes to manipulate your search terms (dates of publication, types of sources, whether or not there are illustrations, etc.).
• Try popular terms such as "fracking"
• See if the catalog leads you to a formal term, such as "hydraulic fracturing."
• If nothing comes up for your term, search a basic database such as Academic Search Complete or look around in Google or even Wikipedia to see if you can find some alternative terms to use.
• Perform an initial search in CatSearch. From the results page, explore subject categories on the right

Boolean operators are words you use to link your search terms together when searching for resources. 

Use them to increase or decrease the number of search results to find what you need

Unlike Google and other web searches, databases work best when you enter keywords instead of full phrases or questions.

• Keywords represent the major concepts of your topic
• Learn new vocabulary or keywords from your initial search results
• Try variations of a keyword, or synonyms.
• When you find a worthy source, get additional keywords from the title, abstract, and subject headings.

Identifying main concepts within your research question/topic.

Research Question:  How does lack of access to food effect child development?

Main Concepts:  lack of access to food, child development (words like how, does, and, to, etc. are not important)

There are a few types of keywords that you can work with, depending on your topic.

• Narrow - can you use a more focused word or idea? (ex. brain development, physical health)
• Broad - what is the big picture idea behind your topic? (ex. Wellness, Health)
• Related - are there concepts that closely relate to your topic? (ex. hunger, nutrition)
• Similar - are there synonyms for your topic/concepts? (ex. hunger, food insecurity, food security, food desert)
• Instructor Resources for Teaching Research Lesson plans, activities, suggested tutorials, and handouts for each part of the research process. Resources are included for both in person, and online asynchronous classes.
• Neurodiversity Teaching Strategies
• << Previous: Topic Selection
• Next: Search for Articles, Books, & More >>
• Last Updated: Mar 19, 2024 8:27 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.montana.edu/literaturereviews

Accessibility Statement

Systematic Review

• Systematic reviews

Being systematic

Search terms, choosing databases, finding additional resources.

• Search techniques
• Systematically search databases
• Appraisal & synthesis
• Reporting findings
• Systematic review tools

Searching literature systematically is useful for all types of literature reviews!

However, if you are writing a systematic literature review the search needs to be particularly well planned and structured to ensure it is:

• comprehensive
• transparent

These help ensure bias is eliminated and the review is methodologically sound.

To achieve the above goals, you will need to:

• create a search strategy and ensure it is reviewed by your research group
• document each stage of your literature searching
• report each stage of quality appraisal 

Identify the key concepts in your research question

The first step in developing your search strategy is identifying the key concepts your research question covers.

• A preliminary search is often done to understand the topic and to refine your research question. 

Identify search terms

Use an iterative process to identify useful search terms for conducting your search. 

• Brainstorm keywords and phrases that can describe each concept you have identified in your research question.
• Create a table to record these keywords
• Select your keywords carefully
• Check against inclusion/exclusion criteria
• Repeated testing   is required to create a robust search strategy for a systematic review
• Run your search on your primary database and evaluate the first page of records to see how suitable your search is
• Identify reasons for irrelevant results and adjust your keywords accordingly 
• Consider whether it would be useful to use broader or narrower terms for your concepts
• Identify keywords in relevant results that you could add to your search to retrieve more relevant resources

Using a concept map or a mind map may help you clarify concepts and the relationships between or within concepts. Watch these YouTube videos for some ideas: 

• How to make a concept map  (by Lucidchart)
• Make sense of this mess world - mind maps  (by Sheng Huang)

Example keywords table:

Research question: What is the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and depression in mothers during the perinatal period? 

Revise your strategy/search terms until :

• the results match your research question
• you are confident you will find all the relevant literature on your topic

See Creating search strings for information on how to enter your search terms into databases. 

Example search string (using Scopus's Advanced search option) for the terms in the above table:

(TITLE-ABS-KEY("advserse childhood experienc*" OR ACE OR "childhood trauma") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY("perinatal depress*" OR "postpartum depress*" OR "postnatal depress*" OR "maternal mental health" OR "maternal psychological distress") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(mother* OR women*))

See Subject headings  for information on including these database specific terms to your search terms.

Systematic reviewers usually use several databases to search for literature. This ensures that the searching is comprehensive and biases are minimised. 

Use both subject-specific and multidisciplinary databases to find resources relevant to your research question:

• Subject-specific databases: in-depth coverage of literature specific to a research field.
• Multi-disciplinary databases: literature from many research fields - help you find resources from disciplines you may not have considered.

Check for databases in your subject area via the Databases tab > Find by subject on the library homepage .

Find the  key databases that are often used for systematic reviews in this guide. 

Test searches to determine database usefulness. You can consult your Liaison Librarians to finalise the list of databases for your review.

Recommendations:

For all systematic reviews we recommend using Scopus , a high-quality, multidisciplinary database:

• Scopus is an abstract and citation database with links to full text on publisher websites or in other databases.
• Scopus indexes a curated collection of high quality journals along with books and conference proceedings.
• Research outputs are across a range of fields - science, technology, medicine, social science, arts and humanities.

For systematic reviews within the health/biomedical field, we recommend including Medline as one of the databases for your review:

MEDLINE  (via Ebsco, via Ovid, via PubMed)

• Medline is the National Library of Medicine’s (NLM) article citation database.
• Medline is hosted individually on a variety of platforms (EBSCO, OVID) and comprises the majority of PubMed.
• Articles in Medline are indexed using MeSH headings. See Subject headings for more information on MeSH.

Note: PubMed contains all of Medline and additional citations, e.g. books, manuscripts, citations that predate Medline.

To ensure your search is comprehensive you may need to search beyond academic databases when conducting a systematic review, particularly to find grey literature  (literature not published commercially and outside traditional academic sources such as journals).

Google Scholar

Google Scholar contains academic resources across disciplines and sources types. These come from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and web sites.

Use Google Scholar

• as an additional tool to locate relevant publications not included in high-level academic databases
• for finding grey literature such as postgraduate theses and conference proceedings

You can limit your search to the type of websites by using site:ac . nz; site:edu

Note that Google Scholar searches are not as replicable or transparent as academic database searches, and may find large numbers of results.

Other sources of grey literature

• Grey literature checklist  (health related grey literature)
• OpenGrey  
• Public health Ontario guide to appraising grey literature
• Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS)
• Google search: use it for finding government reports, policies, theses, etc. You can limit your search to a particular type of websites by including site : govt.nz, site: . gov, site: . ac . nz, site: . edu, in your search

Watch our Finding grey literature  video (3.49 mins) online.

• << Previous: Planning
• Next: Search techniques >>
• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024 9:39 AM
• URL: https://aut.ac.nz.libguides.com/systematic_reviews

• University of Michigan Library
• Research Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Search Strategy
• Work with a Search Expert
• Covidence Review Software
• Types of Reviews
• Evidence in a Systematic Review
• Information Sources

Developing an Answerable Question

Creating a search strategy, identifying synonyms & related terms, keywords vs. index terms, combining search terms using boolean operators, a sr search strategy, search limits.

• Managing Records
• Selection Process
• Data Collection Process
• Study Risk of Bias Assessment
• Reporting Results
• For Search Professionals

Validated Search Filters

Depending on your topic, you may be able to save time in constructing your search by using specific search filters (also called "hedges") developed & validated by researchers in the Health Information Research Unit (HiRU) of McMaster University, under contract from the National Library of Medicine.  These filters can be found on

• PubMed’s Clinical Queries &  Health Services Research Queries pages
• Ovid Medline’s Clinical Queries  filters or here
• Embase  & PsycINFO
• EBSCOhost’s main search page for CINAHL (Clinical Queries category)
• HiRU’s Nephrology Filters page
• American U of Beirut, esp. for " humans" filters .
• Countway Library of Medicine methodology filters
• InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group Search Filter Resource
• SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) filters page

Why Create a Sensitive Search?

In many literature reviews, you try to balance the sensitivity of the search (how many potentially relevant articles you find) &  specificit y (how many definitely relevant articles  you find ), realizing that you will miss some.  In a systematic review, you want a very sensitive search:  you are trying to find any potentially relevant article.  A systematic review search will:

• contain many synonyms & variants of search terms
• use care in adding search filters
• search multiple resources, databases & grey literature, such as reports & clinical trials

PICO is a good framework to help clarify your systematic review question.

P -   Patient, Population or Problem: What are the important characteristics of the patients &/or problem?

I -  Intervention:  What you plan to do for the patient or problem?

C -  Comparison: What, if anything, is the alternative to the intervention?

O -  Outcome:  What is the outcome that you would like to measure?

Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis.

5-SPICE: the application of an original framework for community health worker program design, quality improvement and research agenda setting.

A well constructed search strategy is the core of your systematic review and will be reported on in the methods section of your paper. The search strategy retrieves the majority of the studies you will assess for eligibility & inclusion. The quality of the search strategy also affects what items may have been missed.  Informationists can be partners in this process.

For a systematic review, it is important to broaden your search to maximize the retrieval of relevant results.

Use keywords:  How other people might describe a topic?

Identify the appropriate index terms (subject headings) for your topic.

• Index terms differ by database (MeSH, or  Medical Subject Headings ,   Emtree terms , Subject headings) are assigned by experts based on the article's content.
• Check the indexing of sentinel articles (3-6 articles that are fundamental to your topic).  Sentinel articles can also be used to  test your search results.

Include spelling variations (e.g., behavior, behaviour ).  

Both types of  search terms are useful & both should be used in your search.

Keywords help to broaden your results.  They will be searched for at least in journal titles, author names, article titles, & article abstracts.  They can also be tagged to search all text.

Index/subject terms  help to focus your search appropriately, looking for items that have had a specific term applied by an indexer.

Boolean operators let you combine search terms in specific ways to broaden or narrow your results.

An example of a search string for one concept in a systematic review.

In this example from a PubMed search, [mh] = MeSH &  [tiab] = Title/Abstract, a more focused version of a keyword search.

A typical database search limit allows you to narrow results so that you retrieve articles that are most relevant to your research question. Limit types vary by database & include:

• Article/publication type
• Publication dates

In a systematic review search, you should use care when applying limits, as you may lose articles inadvertently.  For more information, see, particularly regarding language & format limits.     Cochrane 2008 6.4.9

Literature Reviews

• Introduction: What, Who & Why
• Define a topic
• Identify keywords

Identifying keywords

Comprehesive vs precise, using text mining to identify keywords.

• More search tips
• Understand & Analyse
• More resources
• Accessing help
• Systematic Style Reviews Guide

It is important to find all the relevant keywords for the topic to ensure the search is comprehensive by identifying:

• different spellings, tenses and word variants of keywords
• related concepts
• names of people or authors associated with these ideas

There are many  ways to locate these terms, including

• recommended readings, textbooks and other review articles that provide an overview of the field of  research
• dictionaries, thesauri, handbooks and encyclopedias that provide definitions and general information about topics.
• database thesauri or subject headings that tell you which terms are used in the databases and professional literature.
• text mining tools that allow you to analyse large amounts of text or information and identify commonly used terms in the field.

The process of searching will also help identify more terms that you should be adding to your list.

There needs to be a balance in searching between making the search comprehensive enough to encompass everything on the topic and precise enough to only capture those results that are specifically relevant.

Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages

Increasing the comprehensiveness (or sensitivity) of a search will reduce its precision and will retrieve more non-relevant articles.

Text mining will help identify how often terms come up in the literature and help identify other related terms and subject headings that have not been considered or thought of as being useful.

Text mining is a process used to look at large amounts of text and find relationships in the results by using computer programs designed to extract and analyse this data. 

It is used to categorise information and identify trends and patterns which can be done across large documents or multiple sources (or both).

1. Mining for terms Use these tools to find alternate search terms that are related by identifying how often keywords appear and which other terms appear with them by number of occurrences.

2. Mine within the text Locate terms within blocks of text (e.g. an article) to find word patterns and frequency. More frequent words are more likely to be relevant to the topic.

3. Use visualising tools These tools create word clouds related to search terms

These are just some of the tools available for mining text that are available on the web. There is also both commercial and free software that can be downloaded and installed. The web pages linked below have lists of yet more tools.

Further reading:

• EPC Methods: An Exploration of the Use of Text-Mining Software in Systematic Reviews Paynter R., Bañez L. L., Berliner E., Erinoff, E., Lege-Matsuura, J., Potter, S., & Uhl, S. (2016). EPC methods: An exploration of the use of text-mining software in systematic reviews. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK362044/
• << Previous: Search the literature
• Next: More search tips >>
• Last Updated: Apr 26, 2024 10:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.jcu.edu.au/litreview

• Study and research support
• Literature searching

Literature searching explained

Develop a search strategy.

A search strategy is an organised structure of key terms used to search a database. The search strategy combines the key concepts of your search question in order to retrieve accurate results.

Your search strategy will account for all:

• possible search terms
• keywords and phrases
• truncated and wildcard variations of search terms
• subject headings (where applicable)

Each database works differently so you need to adapt your search strategy for each database. You may wish to develop a number of separate search strategies if your research covers several different areas.

It is a good idea to test your strategies and refine them after you have reviewed the search results.

How a search strategy looks in practice

Take a look at this example literature search in PsycINFO (PDF) about self-esteem.

The example shows the subject heading and keyword searches that have been carried out for each concept within our research question and how they have been combined using Boolean operators. It also shows where keyword techniques like truncation, wildcards and adjacency searching have been used.

Search strategy techniques

The next sections show some techniques you can use to develop your search strategy.

Skip straight to:

• Choosing search terms
• Searching with keywords
• Searching for exact phrases
• Using truncated and wildcard searches

Searching with subject headings

• Using Boolean logic

Citation searching

Choose search terms.

Concepts can be expressed in different ways eg “self-esteem” might be referred to as “self-worth”. Your aim is to consider each of your concepts and come up with a list of the different ways they could be expressed.

To find alternative keywords or phrases for your concepts try the following:

• Use a thesaurus to identify synonyms.
• Search for your concepts on a search engine like Google Scholar, scanning the results for alternative words and phrases.
• Examine relevant abstracts or articles for alternative words, phrases and subject headings (if the database uses subject headings).

When you've done this, you should have lists of words and phrases for each concept as in this completed PICO model (PDF) or this example concept map (PDF).

As you search and scan articles and abstracts, you may discover different key terms to enhance your search strategy.

Using truncation and wildcards can save you time and effort by finding alternative keywords.

Search with keywords

Keywords are free text words and phrases. Database search strategies use a combination of free text and subject headings (where applicable).

A keyword search usually looks for your search terms in the title and abstract of a reference. You may wish to search in title fields only if you want a small number of specific results.

Some databases will find the exact word or phrase, so make sure your spelling is accurate or you will miss references.

Search for the exact phrase

If you want words to appear next to each other in an exact phrase, use quotation marks, eg “self-esteem”.

Phrase searching decreases the number of results you get and makes your results more relevant. Most databases allow you to search for phrases, but check the database guide if you are unsure.

Truncation and wildcard searches

You can use truncated and wildcard searches to find variations of your search term. Truncation is useful for finding singular and plural forms of words and variant endings.

Many databases use an asterisk (*) as their truncation symbol. Check the database help section if you are not sure which symbol to use. For example, “therap*” will find therapy, therapies, therapist or therapists. A wildcard finds variant spellings of words. Use it to search for a single character, or no character.

Check the database help section to see which symbol to use as a wildcard.

Wildcards are useful for finding British and American spellings, for example: “behavio?r” in Medline will find both behaviour and behavior.

There are sometimes different symbols to find a variable single character. For example, in the Medline database, “wom#n” will find woman and also women.

Use adjacency searching for more accurate results

You can specify how close two words appear together in your search strategy. This can make your results more relevant; generally the closer two words appear to each other, the closer the relationship is between them.

Commands for adjacency searching differ among databases, so make sure you consult database guides.

In OvidSP databases (like Medline), searching for “physician ADJ3 relationship” will find both physician and relationship within two major words of each other, in any order. This finds more papers than "physician relationship".

Using this adjacency retrieves papers with phrases like "physician patient relationship", "patient physician relationship", "relationship of the physician to the patient" and so on.

Database subject headings are controlled vocabulary terms that a database uses to describe what an article is about.

Watch our 3-minute introduction to subject headings video . You can also  View the video using Microsoft Stream (link opens in a new window, available for University members only).

Using appropriate subject headings enhances your search and will help you to find more results on your topic. This is because subject headings find articles according to their subject, even if the article does not use your chosen key words.

You should combine both subject headings and keywords in your search strategy for each of the concepts you identify. This is particularly important if you are undertaking a systematic review or an in-depth piece of work

Subject headings may vary between databases, so you need to investigate each database separately to find the subject headings they use. For example, for Medline you can use MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) and for Embase you can use the EMTREE thesaurus.

SEARCH TIP: In Ovid databases, search for a known key paper by title, select the "complete reference" button to see which subject headings the database indexers have given that article, and consider adding relevant ones to your own search strategy.

Use Boolean logic to combine search terms

Boolean operators (AND, OR and NOT) allow you to try different combinations of search terms or subject headings.

Databases often show Boolean operators as buttons or drop-down menus that you can click to combine your search terms or results.

The main Boolean operators are:

OR is used to find articles that mention either of the topics you search for.

AND is used to find articles that mention both of the searched topics.

NOT excludes a search term or concept. It should be used with caution as you may inadvertently exclude relevant references.

For example, searching for “self-esteem NOT eating disorders” finds articles that mention self-esteem but removes any articles that mention eating disorders.

Citation searching is a method to find articles that have been cited by other publications.

Use citation searching (or cited reference searching) to:

• find out whether articles have been cited by other authors
• find more recent papers on the same or similar subject
• discover how a known idea or innovation has been confirmed, applied, improved, extended, or corrected
• help make your literature review more comprehensive.

You can use cited reference searching in:

• OvidSP databases
• Google Scholar
• Web of Science

Cited reference searching can complement your literature search. However be careful not to just look at papers that have been cited in isolation. A robust literature search is also needed to limit publication bias.

How to undertake a literature search: a step-by-step guide

Affiliation.

• 1 Literature Search Specialist, Library and Archive Service, Royal College of Nursing, London.
• PMID: 32279549
• DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2020.29.7.431

Undertaking a literature search can be a daunting prospect. Breaking the exercise down into smaller steps will make the process more manageable. This article suggests 10 steps that will help readers complete this task, from identifying key concepts to choosing databases for the search and saving the results and search strategy. It discusses each of the steps in a little more detail, with examples and suggestions on where to get help. This structured approach will help readers obtain a more focused set of results and, ultimately, save time and effort.

Keywords: Databases; Literature review; Literature search; Reference management software; Research questions; Search strategy.

• Databases, Bibliographic*
• Information Storage and Retrieval / methods*
• Nursing Research
• Review Literature as Topic*

• Subject guides
• Researching for your literature review
• Keyword search activity

Researching for your literature review: Keyword search activity

• Literature reviews
• Literature sources
• Before you start
• Develop a search strategy
• Subject search activity
• Combined keyword and subject searching
• Online tutorials
• Apply search limits
• Run a search in different databases
• Supplementary searching
• Save your searches
• Manage results

Keyword searching in Scopus

Keyword searching tips:.

• Keywords are simply the terms used within an article.
• A database will generally search for keywords in the title and abstract fields, and may also search other fields of the database record.
• It is important to include alternative spellings and synonyms for your keywords to retrieve all articles on your topic. 

Searching Scopus database:

1.  Login to Scopus at http://guides.lib.monash.edu/go.php?c=8480086

Enter "infection control*" OR "infection prevention" and click on the search button.  Note: You can specify which fields you wish to search for these terms

From the results page, click the Search link at the top right of the screen to return to the search box. Clear your existing search.

Enter "methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus" OR "meticillin resistant staphylococcus aureus" OR MRSA and click on the search button.

Enter "aged care home*" OR "nursing home*"   and click on the search button.

2.  From the results page, click on the Search link at the top right of the screen to return to the main search page.

Scroll down to see the Search History box. The three search sets can now be combined using this Search History menu.

Select the search using the boxes next to them, and select Combine queries.

3.  On the search results page, you have the option of further refining your search results. In the Refine results table on the left side of the results, choose Language . Click the down arrow to expand the menu. Tick English , then the Limit to button.

4.  Use the Sort on links on the right hand side above your search results to change the order of the results. Select the Relevance link from the drop-down menu.

5.  Review your results and adjust your search if necessary.

You can test your initial search strategy in the following ways:

Does it retrieve relevant papers?

Does it retrieve the papers from your “sample set”?

If you retrieve too many results, try:

• using more specific search terms
• using limits
• adding another term and combining with your previous result set using and

If you are not finding any, or only a few results, try:

• a different database
• using more general search terms
• removing limits e.g. publication year
• checking a known reference for alternative keywords

6. Locate full text using the Check for full text button

Click on the link in the Search catalogue to open the full text of the article

If full text is not available online, the following Search catalogue window will appear

Click Search tips to try an alternative search for the full text of this article. If your search still does not match any resource in the library, sign in to place a document delivery request for this item (Honours and Postgraduate students only).

• << Previous: Develop a search strategy
• Next: Subject search activity >>

Literature Review - Finding the Resources

• The Literature
• Search Tools
• Formulating your search statement

Keyword search

More search tips - 1, more search tips - 2.

• Buliding on what you have found
• Keeping Track
• Academic Reading
• Citing Sources
• The Learning Lounge

During your literature search, especially when you search for articles in databases, you will rely very much on keyword searching. To conduct a keyword search , you need to formulate a search statement .

Below are the basic steps to develop a search statement. After going through these steps, try to build up your own search statement using this  worksheet [pdf]

Here is a diagram to help you understand:

1. Identify the keywords or the main concepts of your research topic.

• For example, for the topic Globalization of Chinese companies , the keywords are Globalization , Chinese and Companies .

2. Think of similar terms (synonyms) or phrases that might also be used to describe these concepts, to ensure that you do not miss out any relevant information. You can use a thesaurus to help you find synonyms. For example, you can first arrange the main concepts in columns. Then under each column write down similar terms or phrases that may also be used to represent that concept:  

3. Combine your search terms in a way that a database can understand. To do this, you need to use the words AND , OR , NOT (Boolean operators).

• AND combines different concepts (e.g. Globalization and Chinese listed in different columns of the table above are different concepts).
• OR combines similar concepts (e.g. Chinese and China listed in the same column above are similar concepts).
• NOT excludes the undesirable concepts

4. Make use of truncation, wildcards, parentheses and phrase searching for more productive searching. Symbols commonly used in many search tools including catalogues and databases are:

5. A search statement can then be developed

e.g. Globali?ation AND (Chinese OR China) AND (Compan* OR Corporat* OR Firm*)

Use a form (sometimes called "Quick Search", "Advanced Search" or "Form Search") to search if possible.

For example, this is more user-friendly

When necessary, in order to make the search more focused, limit the search by

• Specific search fields (e.g. journal titles, abstracts, subjects)
• Document types (e.g. scholarly articles, conferences)
• Year of publication, etc.
• << Previous: Search Techniques
• Next: Buliding on what you have found >>
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 4:25 PM
• URL: https://libguides.library.cityu.edu.hk/litreview

© City University of Hong Kong | Copyright | Disclaimer

Developing NICE guidelines: the manual

NICE process and methods [PMG20] Published: 31 October 2014 Last updated: 17 January 2024

• Tools and resources
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The scope
• 3 Decision-making committees
• 4 Developing review questions and planning the evidence review

5 Identifying the evidence: literature searching and evidence submission

• 6 Reviewing evidence
• 7 Incorporating economic evaluation
• 8 Linking to other guidance
• 9 Interpreting the evidence and writing the guideline
• 10 The validation process for draft guidelines, and dealing with stakeholder comments
• 11 Finalising and publishing the guideline recommendations
• 12 Support for putting the guideline recommendations into practice
• 13 Ensuring that published guidelines are current and accurate
• 14 Updating guideline recommendations
• 15 Appendices
• Update information

NICE process and methods

5.1 introduction, 5.2 searches during guideline recommendation scoping and surveillance, 5.3 searches during guideline recommendation development, 5.4 health inequalities and equality and diversity, 5.5 quality assurance, 5.6 documenting the search, 5.7 re-running searches, 5.8 calls for evidence from stakeholders, 5.9 references and further reading.

The systematic identification of evidence is an essential step in developing NICE guideline recommendations.

This chapter sets out how evidence is identified at each stage of the guideline development cycle. It provides details of the systematic literature searching methods used to identify the best available evidence for NICE guidelines. It also provides details of associated information management processes including quality assurance (peer review), re‑running searches, and documenting the search process.

Our searching methods are informed by the chapter on searching & selecting studies in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Campbell Collaboration's searching for studies guide . The Summarized Research in Information Retrieval for HTA (SuRe Info) resource also provides research-based advice on information retrieval for systematic reviews.

Our literature searches are designed to be systematic, transparent, and reproducible, and minimise dissemination bias. Dissemination bias may affect the results of reviews and includes publication bias and database bias.

We use search methods that balance recall and precision. When the need to reduce the number of studies requires pragmatic search approaches that may increase the risk of missing relevant studies, the context and trade-offs are discussed and agreed within the development team and made explicit in the reported search methods.

A flexible approach to identifying evidence is adopted, guided by the subject of the review question (see the chapter on developing review questions and planning the evidence review ), type of evidence sought, and the resource constraints of the evidence review. Often an evidence review will be an update of our earlier work, therefore the approach can be informed by previous searches and surveillance reviews (see the chapter on ensuring that published guidelines are current and accurate ).

Scoping searches

Scoping searches are top-level searches to support scope development. The purpose of the searches is to investigate the current evidence around the topic, and to identify any areas where an evidence review may be beneficial and any research gaps. The results of the searches are used to draft the scope of the upcoming guideline or update and to inform the discussions at scoping workshops (if held). Scoping searches do not aim to be exhaustive.

In some cases, scoping searches are not required when it is more efficient to use the surveillance review (see the chapter on the scope ).

The sources searched at scoping stage will vary according to the topic, type of review questions the guideline or update will seek to address, and type of evidence sought. Each scoping search is tailored using combinations of the following types of information:

NICE guidance and guidance from other organisations

policy and legislation guides

key systematic reviews and epidemiological reviews

economic evaluations

current practice data, including costs and resource use and any safety concerns

views and experiences of people using services, their family members or carers, or the public

other real-world health and social care data (for example audits, surveys, registries, electronic health records, patient-generated health data), if appropriate

summaries of interventions that may be appropriate, including any national safety advice

statistics (for example on epidemiology, natural history of the condition, service configuration or national prevalence data).

All scoping searches are fully documented and if new issues are identified at a scoping workshop, the search is updated. A range of possible sources considered for scoping searches is provided in the appendix on suggested sources for scoping .

Health inequalities searches

The purpose of these searches is to identify evidence to help inform the scope, health inequalities briefing, or the equality and health inequalities assessment (EHIA). They help identify key issues relevant to health inequalities on the topic, for example covering protected characteristics, groups experiencing or at risk of inequalities, or wider determinants of health.

The searches involve finding key data sources, such as routinely available national databases, audits or published reports by charities, non-governmental bodies, or government organisations.

Surveillance searches

Surveillance determines whether published recommendations remain current. The searches are tailored to the evidence required. This may include searches for new or updated policies, legislation, guidance from other organisations, or ongoing studies in the area covered by the evidence review.

If required, published evidence is identified by searching a range of bibliographic databases relevant to the topic. Surveillance searches generally use the same core set of databases used during the development of the original evidence review. A list of sources is given in the appendix on sources for evidence reviews .

The search approach and sources will vary between topics and may include:

population and intervention searches

focused searches for specific question areas

forward and backward citation searching.

Searches usually focus on randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews, although other study types will be considered where appropriate, for example for diagnostic questions.

The search period starts at either the end of the search for the last update of a guideline evidence review, or at the last search date for any previous surveillance check. Where appropriate, living evidence surveillance could be set up to continuously monitor the publication of new evidence over a period of time until impact reaches the threshold for actions. For more information on NICE guideline recommendation surveillance, see the chapter on ensuring that guideline recommendations are current and accurate and appendix on surveillance - interim principles for monitoring approaches of guideline recommendations .

Search protocols

Search protocols form part of the wider guideline review protocol (see the appendix on the review protocol template ). They pre‑define how the evidence is identified and provide a basis for developing the search strategies.

Once the final scope is agreed, the information specialist develops the search protocols and agrees them with the development team before the evidence search begins.

A search protocol includes the following elements:

approach to the search strategy, tailored to the review question and eligibility criteria

sources to be searched

plans to use any additional or alternative search techniques , when known at the protocol development stage, and the reasons for their use

details of any limits to be applied to the search

references to any key papers used to inform the search approach.

Searches are done on a mix of bibliographic databases, websites and other sources, depending on the subject of the review question and the type of evidence sought.

For most searches there are key sources that are prioritised, and other potentially relevant sources that can be considered. It is important to ensure adequate coverage of the relevant literature and to search a range of sources. However, there are practical limits to the number of sources that can be searched in the standard time available for an evidence review.

The selection of sources varies according to the requirements of the review question.

Clinical intervention sources

For reviews of the effectiveness of clinical interventions the following sources are prioritised for searching:

the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)

the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)

Clinical safety sources

In addition to the sources searched for clinical interventions, the following should be prioritised for clinical safety review questions:

MHRA drug safety updates

National patient safety alerts .

Antimicrobial resistance sources

For reviews of antimicrobial resistance, the following sources should be prioritised:

UK Health Security Agency's English surveillance programme for antimicrobial utilisation and resistance (ESPAUR) report

UK Health Security Agency's antimicrobial resistance local indicators .

Cost-effectiveness sources

For reviews of cost effectiveness, economic databases are used in combination with general bibliographic databases, such as MEDLINE and Embase (see appendix G on sources for economic reviews ).

Economic evaluations of social care interventions may be published in journals that are not identified through standard searches. Targeted searches based on references of key articles and contacting authors can be considered to identify relevant papers.

Topic-specific sources

Some topics we cover may require the use of topic-specific sources. Examples include:

PsycINFO (psychology and psychiatry)

CINAHL (nursing and allied health professions)

ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts)

HealthTalk , and other sources to identify the views and experiences of people using services, carers and the public

social policy and practice

social care online

sociological abstracts

transport database

Greenfile (environmental literature)

HMIC (Health Management Information Consortium).

Searching for model inputs

Evidence searches may be needed to inform design-oriented conceptual models. Examples include precise searches to find representative NHS costs for an intervention or finding out the proportion of people offered an intervention who take up the offer.

Some model inputs, such as costs, use national sources such as national list prices or national audit data. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to identify costs from the academic literature. Further advice on methods to identify model inputs are also informed by Paisley (2016) and Kaltenhaler et al. (2011). See also the chapter on incorporating economic evaluation .

Real-world data

Information specialists can identify sources of real-world data (such as electronic health records, registries, and audits) for data analysts to explore further. The Health Data Research Innovation Gateway can be used to identify datasets. The NICE real-world evidence framework (2022) has additional guidance on searching for and selecting real-world data sources.

Grey literature

For some review questions, for example, where significant evidence is likely to be published in non-journal sources and there is a paucity of evidence in published journal sources, it may be appropriate to search for grey literature . Useful sources of grey literature include:

HMIC (Health Management Information Consortium)

TRIP database

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) Grey Matters resource .

Committee members may also be able to suggest additional appropriate sources for grey literature.

A list containing potential relevant sources is provided in the appendix on sources for evidence reviews .

Developing search strategies

The approach to devising and structuring search strategies is informed by the review protocol. The PICO (population, intervention, comparator and outcome) or SPICE (setting, perspective, intervention, comparison, evaluation) frameworks may be used to structure a search strategy for intervention review questions. For other types of review questions, alternative frameworks may be more suitable.

It is sometimes more efficient to conduct a single search for multiple review questions, rather than conducting a separate search for each question.

Some topics may not easily lend themselves to PICO- or SPICE-type frameworks. In these cases, it may be better to combine multiple, shorter searches rather than attempting to capture the entire topic using a single search. This is often referred to as multi-stranded searching.

In some instances, for example where the terminology around a topic is diffuse or ill defined, it may be difficult to specify the most appropriate search terms in advance. In these cases, an iterative approach to searching can be used.

In an iterative approach, searching is done in several stages, with each search considering the evidence that has already been retrieved (for example, see Booth et al. 2020 ). Searching in stages allows the reviewers to review the most relevant, high-quality information first and then make decisions for identifying additional evidence if needed.

Decisions to use iterative approaches are agreed by the development team and staff with responsibility for quality assurance because it can affect timelines.

Updating previous work

Where high-quality review-level evidence is available on a topic, the review team may choose to update or expand this previous work rather than duplicating the existing findings. In these cases, the original review searches are re-run and expanded to account for any differences in scope and inclusion criteria between the original review and the update.

Cost-effectiveness searches

There are several methods that can be used to identify economic evaluations:

All relevant review questions can be covered by a single search using the population search terms, combined with a search filter, to identify economic evidence.

The search strategies for individual review questions can be combined with search filters to identify economic evidence. If using this approach, it may be necessary to adapt strategies for some databases to ensure adequate sensitivity.

Economic evidence can be manually sifted while screening evidence from a general literature search (so no separate searches are required).

The rationale for the selected approach is recorded in the search protocol.

Where searches are needed to populate an economic model, these are usually done separately.

Identifying search terms

Search terms usually consist of a combination of subject headings and free‑text terms from the titles and abstracts of relevant references.

When identifying subject headings, variations in thesaurus and indexing terms for each database should be considered, for example MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) in MEDLINE and Emtree in Embase. Not all databases have indexing terms and some contain records that have not yet been indexed.

Free‑text terms may include synonyms, acronyms and abbreviations, spelling variants, old and new terminology, brand and generic medicine names, and lay and medical terminology.

For updates, previous search terms, including those from surveillance searches, are reviewed and used to inform new search terms. New or changed terms are identified, as well as any changes to indexing terms. This also applies when an existing review, for example a Cochrane review, is being updated to answer a review question.

Key studies can be a useful source of search terms, as can reports, guidelines, topic-specific websites, committee members and topic experts.

Some websites and databases have limited search functionality. It may be necessary to use fewer search terms or do multiple searches of the same resource with different search term combinations.

It may be helpful to use frequency analysis or text mining to develop the search-term strategy. Tools such as PubReMiner and Medline Ranker can help, either by highlighting search terms that might not otherwise be apparent, or by flagging terms of high value when exhaustive synonym searching is unfeasible or inadvisable.

Search limits

The application of limits to search strategies will reflect the eligibility criteria in the review protocol. Typically, English language limits, date limits, and the exclusion of conference abstracts and animal studies are usually done as a matter of routine.

Search filters

A search filter is a string of search terms with known (validated) performance. When a particular study design is required for a review question, relevant search filters are usually applied to literature search strategies.

Other search filters relating to age, setting, geography, and health inequalities are also applied as relevant. The most comprehensive list of available search filters is the search filter resource of the InterTASC Information Specialists' SubGroup . This resource also includes critical appraisal tools, which are used for filter selection.

Economics-related filters

A variety of search filters of relevance to cost effectiveness are available. These include filters for economic evaluations, quality of life data, and cost-utilities data. It may be necessary to use more than 1 filter to identify relevant data. In addition, it may be appropriate to add geographic search filters, such as those for the UK or Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, to retrieve economic studies relevant to the UK or OECD (Ayiku et al. 2017, 2019, 2021).

Use of machine learning-based classifiers

Machine learning-based classification software has been developed for some study types (for example the Cochrane RCT classifier, Thomas et al. 2020 ). These classifiers apply a probability weighting to each bibliographical reference within a set of search results. The weighting relates to the reference's likelihood to be a particular study type, based on a model created from analysis of known, relevant papers. The weightings can then be used to either order references for screening or be used with a fixed cut-off value to divide a list of references into those more likely to be included, and those that can be excluded without manual screening.

We support the use of machine classifiers if their performance characteristics are known, and if they improve efficiency in the search and screening process. However, caution is needed when using classifiers, because they may not be as effective if used on data that is different to the type of data for which they were originally developed. For example, the Cochrane RCT classifier is reported to have over 99% recall for health studies but showed "unacceptably low" recall for educational research ( Stansfield et al. 2022 ).

Priority screening, a type of machine classifier that orders references for manual sifting based on previous sifting decisions, is considered in the chapter on reviewing evidence .

Additional search techniques

Additional search techniques are used alongside database searching when it is known, or reasonably likely, that relevant evidence is not indexed in bibliographic databases, or when it will be difficult to retrieve relevant evidence from databases in a way that adequately balances recall and precision. Additional search techniques include forward and backward citation searching, journal hand-searches and contacting experts and stakeholders.

Existing reviews may provide an additional source of primary studies, with reference lists being used as an indirect method of identifying primary research.

Various tools, including Citationchaser and Web of Science, are available to speed up the process of citation searching. These may not be as comprehensive as manual reference list checking (due to limitations of the underlying data sources), but the trade-off in terms of speed is generally acceptable.

All search techniques should follow the same principles of transparency, rigour and reproducibility as other search methods.

If possible, additional search techniques should be considered at the outset and documented in the search protocol. They should also be documented in the supporting appendices for the final evidence review.

All searches aim to be inclusive. This may mean not specifying any population groups.

Searches should avoid inadvertently excluding relevant groups. For example, if the population group is older people, a search for older people should pick up subpopulations such as disabled older people.

Additional search strategies may be needed to target evidence about people with protected characteristics or people experiencing or at risk from other inequalities.

Searches may need to be developed iteratively to ensure coverage of the health inequalities issues or evidence on the impacts of an intervention on equality.

Appropriate terminology for the search should be used, considering how language has evolved.

Quality assuring the literature search is an important step in developing guideline recommendations. Studies have shown that errors do occur.

For each search (including economic searches), the initial MEDLINE search strategy is quality assured by a second information specialist. A standardised checklist, based on the PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement , is used to ensure clarity and consistency when quality assuring search strategies.

The information specialist carrying out the quality assurance process also considers how appropriate the overall search approach is to the parameters of the evidence review (for example, the time available to carry out the review). The quality assurance comments are recorded and the information specialist who conducted the search should respond to the comments and revise the search strategy as needed.

Search strategy translations across the remaining databases are also checked by a second information specialist to ensure that the strategies have been adapted appropriately, in accordance with the interfaces and search functionality of the sources used.

Details of the evidence search are included as appendices to the individual evidence reviews. They are published for consultation alongside the draft evidence review and included in the final version.

Records are kept of the searches undertaken during guideline recommendation development for all review questions to ensure that the process for identifying the evidence is transparent and reproducible.

We use the PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews to inform search reporting. The search documentation is an audit trail that allows the reader to understand both the technical aspect of what was done (such as which sources were searched; what platform was used and on what date; any deviations from the original search protocol) and the underlying rationale for the search approach where this may not be immediately apparent.

Documenting the search begins with creating the search protocol (see the section on search protocols ). If using an iterative or emergent stepped approach, initial search strategies, key decision points and the reasons for subsequent search steps are clearly documented in the search protocol and final evidence review. When using a proprietary search engine such as Google, whose underlying algorithm adapts to different users, the search is reported in a way that should allow the reader to understand what was done.

Searches undertaken to identify evidence for each review question (including economics searches) may be re-run before consultation or before publication. For example, searches are re‑run if the evidence changes quickly, there is reason to believe that substantial new evidence exists, or the development time is longer than usual.

A decision to re‑run searches is taken by the development team and staff with responsibility for quality assurance.

If undertaken, searches are re‑run at least 6 to 8 weeks before the final committee meeting before consultation.

If evidence is identified after the last cut‑off date for searching but before publication, a judgement on its impact is made by the development team and staff with responsibility for quality assurance. In exceptional circumstances, this evidence can be considered if its impact is judged as potentially substantial.

In some topic areas or for some review questions, staff with responsibility for quality assurance, the development team or the committee may believe that there is relevant evidence in addition to that identified by the searches. In these situations, the development team may invite stakeholders, and possibly also other relevant organisations or individuals with a significant role or interest (see expert witnesses in the section on other attendees at committee meetings in the chapter on decision-making committees ), to submit evidence. A call for evidence is issued directly to registered stakeholders on the NICE website. Examples and details of process are included in the appendix on call for evidence and expert witnesses . Confidential information should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Ayiku L, Levay P, Hudson T et al. (2017) The medline UK filter: development and validation of a geographic search filter to retrieve research about the UK from OVID medline. Health Information and Libraries Journal 34(3): 200–216

Ayiku L, Levay P, Hudson T et al. (2019) The Embase UK filter: validation of a geographic search filter to retrieve research about the UK from OVID Embase. Health Information and Libraries Journal 36(2): 121–133

Ayiku L, Hudson T, Williams C et al. (2021) The NICE OECD countries' geographic search filters: Part 2-validation of the MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) filters . Journal of the Medical Library Association 109(4): 583–9

Booth A, Briscoe S, Wright JM (2020) The "realist search": a systematic review of current practice and reporting . Research Synthesis Methods 11: 14–35

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2019) Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature [online; accessed 24 July 2023]

Glanville J, Lefebvre C, Wright K (editors) (2008, updated 2017) The InterTASC Information Specialists' Subgroup Search Filters Resource [online; accessed 24 July 2023]

Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S (2011) NICE DSU Technical support document 13: identifying and reviewing evidence to inform the conceptualisation and population of cost-effectiveness models [online; accessed 24 July 2023]

Kugley S, Wade A, Thomas J et al. (2017) Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews . Oslo: The Campbell Collaboration

Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies . In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Cumpston M et al. (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM et al. (2016) PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 75: 40–6

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022) NICE real-world evidence framework [online; accessed 24 July 2023]

Paisley S (2016) Identification of key parameters in decision-analytic models of cost-effectiveness: a description of sources and a recommended minimum search requirement. Pharmacoeconomics 34: 597–8

Rethlefsen M, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S et al. (2021) PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews . Systematic Reviews 10: 39

Stansfield C, Stokes G, Thoman J (2022) Applying machine classifiers to update searches: analysis from two case studies . Research Synthesis Methods 13: 121–33

Summarized research for Information Retrieval in HTA (SuRe Info) [online; accessed 24 July 2023]

Chemical Science

Multiconfigurational actinide nitrides assisted by double möbius aromaticity †.

* Corresponding authors

a School of Physics, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410083, China E-mail: [email protected]

b School of Chemistry, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610031, China

c The State Key Laboratory of Physical Chemistry of Solid Surfaces, iChEM, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Theoretical and Computational Chemistry and College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian 361005, China E-mail: [email protected]

d Department of Nanoscience, Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27401, USA E-mail: [email protected]

Understanding the bonding nature between actinides and main-group elements remains a key challenge in actinide chemistry due to the involvement of f orbitals. Herein, we propose a unique “aromaticity-assisted multiconfiguration” (AAM) model to elucidate the bonding nature in actinide nitrides (An 2 N 2 , An = Ac, Th, Pa, U). Each planar four-membered An 2 N 2 with equivalent An–N bonds possesses four delocalized π electrons and four delocalized σ electrons, forming a new family of double Möbius aromaticity that contributes to the molecular stability. The unprecedented aromaticity further supports actinide nitrides to exhibit multiconfigurational characters, where the unpaired electrons (2, 4 or 6 in naked Th 2 N 2 , Pa 2 N 2 or U 2 N 2 , respectively) either are spin-free and localized on metal centres or form metal–ligand bonds. High-level multiconfigurational computations confirm an open-shell singlet ground state for actinide nitrides, with small energy gaps to high spin states. This is consistent with the antiferromagnetic nature observed experimentally in uranium nitrides. The novel AAM bonding model can be authenticated in both experimentally identified compounds containing a U 2 N 2 motif and other theoretically modelled An 2 N 2 clusters and is thus expected to be a general chemical bonding pattern between actinides and main-group elements.

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information PDF (2552K)

Transparent peer review

To support increased transparency, we offer authors the option to publish the peer review history alongside their article.

View this article’s peer review history

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

Multiconfigurational actinide nitrides assisted by double Möbius aromaticity

X. Lin, X. Lu, S. Tang, W. Wu and Y. Mo, Chem. Sci. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D4SC01549E

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements