Systematic reviews need systematic searchers.

PURPOSE This paper will provide a description of the methods, skills, and knowledge of expert searchers working on systematic review teams. BRIEF DESCRIPTION Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are very important to health care practitioners, who need to keep abreast of the medical literature and make informed decisions. Searching is a critical part of conducting these systematic reviews, as errors made in the search process potentially result in a biased or otherwise incomplete evidence base for the review. Searches for systematic reviews need to be constructed to maximize recall and deal effectively with a number of potentially biasing factors. Librarians who conduct the searches for systematic reviews must be experts. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION Expert searchers need to understand the specifics about data structure and functions of bibliographic and specialized databases, as well as the technical and methodological issues of searching. Search methodology must be based on research about retrieval practices, and it is vital that expert searchers keep informed about, advocate for, and, moreover, conduct research in information retrieval. Expert searchers are an important part of the systematic review team, crucial throughout the review process-from the development of the proposal and research question to publication.

[1]  David Moher,et al.  Randomized controlled trials in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine: Where can they be found? , 2003, BMC pediatrics.

[2]  P. Royle,et al.  Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[3]  Steve McDonald,et al.  Development of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.

[4]  K. Stevens,et al.  Systematic reviews: the heart of evidence-based practice. , 2001, AACN clinical issues.

[5]  R. Horton,et al.  Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. , 2001, American journal of preventive medicine.

[7]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the Quality of Reports of Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: The QUOROM Statement , 2000, Oncology Research and Treatment.

[8]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? , 2000, The Lancet.

[9]  J. Eldredge.  Evidence-based librarianship: an overview. , 2000, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[10]  J Glanville,et al.  Identifying systematic reviews: key resources , 2000, ACP journal club.

[11]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[12]  I. Olkin,et al.  Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved. , 1999, JAMA.

[13]  Nancy L. Wilczynski,et al.  PDQ Evidence-Based Principles and Practice , 1999 .

[14]  D. Cook,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  D T Richards,et al.  Librarian participation in meta-analysis projects. , 1995, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[16]  J. Marshall,et al.  Using scientific evidence to improve information practice. , 1995, Health libraries review.

[17]  D. Felson,et al.  Bias in meta-analytic research. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  P. Riis.  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 1990, Ugeskrift for læger.

[19]  Lois Ann Colaianni,et al.  UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO BIOMEDICAL JOURNALS , 2000 .

[20]  T. Rephann,et al.  Association , 1973, ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Advances in Geographic Information Systems.