“It has no meaning to me.” How do researchers understand the effectiveness of literature searches? A qualitative analysis and preliminary typology of understandings

This study aimed to address the question: what does "effectiveness" mean to researchers in the context of literature searching for systematic reviews? We conducted a thematic analysis of responses to an e-mail survey. Eighty-nine study authors, whose studies met inclusion in a recent review (2018), were contacted via e-mail and asked three questions; one directly asking the question: in literature searching, what does effective (or effectiveness in) literature searching mean to you? Thirty-eight (46%) responses were received from diverse professional groups, including: literature searchers, systematic reviewers, clinicians and researchers. A shared understanding of what effectiveness means was not identified. Instead, five themes were developed from data: 1) effectiveness is described as a metric; 2) effectiveness is a balance between metrics; 3) effectiveness can be categorised by search purpose; 4) effectiveness is an outcome; and, 5) effectiveness is an experimental concept. We propose that these themes constitute a preliminary typology of understandings. No single definition of effectiveness was identified. The proposed typology suggests that different researchers have differing understandings of effectiveness. This could lead to uncertainty as to the aim and the purpose of literature searches and confusion about the outcomes. The typology offers a potential route for further exploration.

[1]  Is email a reliable means of contacting authors of previously published papers? A study of the Emergency Medicine Journal for 2001 , 2003, Emergency medicine journal : EMJ.

[2]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[3]  Rachel Churchill,et al.  Revisiting the need for a literature search narrative: A brief methodological note , 2018, Research synthesis methods.

[4]  Jerry Suls,et al.  The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews , 2019, Research synthesis methods.

[5]  M. R. Harris The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study. , 2005, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[6]  A. Booth,et al.  A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[7]  Melissa L Rethlefsen,et al.  Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  A. Booth Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[9]  A F Long,et al.  Searching for information on outcomes: do you need to be comprehensive? , 1998, Quality in health care : QHC.

[10]  Susan Michie,et al.  Investigating complexity in systematic reviews of interventions by using a spectrum of methods. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  S. McDonald,et al.  Identifying reports of controlled trials in the BMJ and the Lancet , 1996, BMJ.

[12]  David Moher,et al.  Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[13]  Susan Michie,et al.  A research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  J. McGowan,et al.  PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  J. McGowan,et al.  Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. , 2005, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[16]  David Ogilvie,et al.  Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews , 2014, Research synthesis methods.

[17]  Mark Petticrew,et al.  Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from ‘what works’ to ‘what happens’ , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[18]  David Hailey,et al.  Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[19]  J. Glanville,et al.  Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study. , 2017, Health technology assessment.

[20]  Zachary Munn,et al.  What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[21]  Helen Greenwood,et al.  Handsearching had best recall but poor efficiency when exporting to a bibliographic tool: case study. , 2020, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  Dorothy L. Espelage,et al.  Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large‐evidence systematic reviews and meta‐analyses , 2019, Research Synthesis Methods.

[23]  A. Booth,et al.  The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. , 2003, Health information and libraries journal.

[24]  Kevin B Smith,et al.  Typologies, Taxonomies, and the Benefits of Policy Classification , 2002 .

[25]  J. Donnelly,et al.  Author contacts for retrieval of data for a meta-analysis on exercise and diet restriction , 2003, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[26]  D. Moher,et al.  A scoping review of rapid review methods , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[27]  Andrew Booth,et al.  How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments , 2010, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[28]  Jonathan B. Koffel Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent Authors , 2015, PloS one.

[29]  Abdullah Pandor,et al.  The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[30]  Michelle Jenkins,et al.  Evaluation of methodological search filters--a review. , 2004, Health information and libraries journal.

[31]  Claire Stansfield,et al.  Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of common issues , 2014, Research synthesis methods.

[32]  Gerald Gartlehner,et al.  Assessing the validity of abbreviated literature searches for rapid reviews: protocol of a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic study , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[33]  P. Richardson,et al.  Identifying randomized controlled trials of cognitive therapy for depression: comparing the efficiency of Embase, Medline and PsycINFO bibliographic databases. , 1999, The British journal of medical psychology.

[34]  J. Sterne,et al.  How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[35]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Supplementary search methods were more effective and offered better value than bibliographic database searching: A case study from public health and environmental enhancement , 2018, Research synthesis methods.

[36]  Julie Glanville,et al.  Reporting methodological search filter performance comparisons: a literature review. , 2014, Health information and libraries journal.

[37]  R. Brian Haynes,et al.  Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. , 1994, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[38]  A. Booth The number needed to retrieve: a practically useful measure of information retrieval? , 2006, Health information and libraries journal.

[39]  Chris Cooper,et al.  Established search filters may miss studies when identifying randomized controlled trials. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[40]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Systematic review identifies six metrics and one method for assessing literature search effectiveness but no consensus on appropriate use. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[41]  D. Gough,et al.  Clarifying differences between review designs and methods , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[42]  Karen A Robinson,et al.  Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.

[43]  Andrijana Rajić,et al.  Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri‐food public health , 2016, Research synthesis methods.

[44]  Chris Cooper,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, cost and value of contacting study authors in a systematic review: a case study and worked example , 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[45]  Ruth Garside,et al.  Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.