Searching for Programme theories for a realist evaluation: a case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search

[1]  J. Craven,et al.  Systematic Searching , 2018 .

[2]  Marko Ćurković,et al.  Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[3]  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.

[4]  Ray Pawson,et al.  Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care , 2017 .

[5]  Claire Stansfield,et al.  Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic? , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[6]  Heidi A. Green,et al.  Experiences and perceptions using the Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment tool: a community care perspective , 2016 .

[7]  Jean Adams,et al.  Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[8]  Joanne Greenhalgh,et al.  RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations , 2016, BMC Medicine.

[9]  Rachel Kettle,et al.  Identifying evidence for public health guidance: a comparison of citation searching with Web of Science and Google Scholar , 2016, Research synthesis methods.

[10]  Neal R Haddaway,et al.  The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching , 2015, PloS one.

[11]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable? , 2015, Health information and libraries journal.

[12]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  Protocol—the RAMESES II study: developing guidance and reporting standards for realist evaluation , 2015, BMJ Open.

[13]  David Richards,et al.  Complex Interventions in Health : An overview of research methods , 2015 .

[14]  S. Briscoe.  Erratum to: Web searching for systematic reviews: a case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme , 2015, BMC Research Notes.

[15]  S. Briscoe.  Web searching for systematic reviews: a case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme , 2015, BMC Research Notes.

[16]  A. O’Cathain,et al.  Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  E Johansen,et al.  Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: what difference does a risk scale make? A comparison between Norway and Ireland. , 2014, Journal of wound care.

[18]  Ghazala Mir,et al.  Searching for religion and mental health studies required health, social science, and grey literature databases. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  Jon Hindmarsh,et al.  Integration of robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration, and decision making: a realist process evaluation protocol , 2014, Implementation Science.

[20]  Z. Moore,et al.  Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[21]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Acknowledging a Dual Heritage for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Harnessing the Qualitative Research and Systematic Review Research Traditions , 2013 .

[22]  Heidi Guy,et al.  Pressure ulcer risk assessment. , 2012, Nursing times.

[23]  Anthea Sutton,et al.  Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review , 2012 .

[24]  Jan Kottner,et al.  Do pressure ulcer risk assessment scales improve clinical practice? , 2010, Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare.

[25]  Ray Pawson,et al.  The Today Programme’s Contribution to Evidence-based Policy , 2010 .

[26]  A. Booth,et al.  Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[27]  J. Glanville,et al.  Searching for Studies , 2008 .

[28]  J. Sterne,et al.  Systematic reviews of test accuracy should search a range of databases to identify primary studies. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[30]  D. Lawlor,et al.  Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns? , 2004, Complementary therapies in medicine.

[31]  J. Greenhalgh,et al.  Reviewing and selecting outcome measures for use in routine practice. , 1998, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[32]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Scoping and Searching to SupportRealist Approaches , 2018 .

[33]  Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers : Clinical Practice Guideline , 2017 .

[34]  elke. hausner,et al.  Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness , 2016 .

[35]  J. Higgins.  Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2011 .

[36]  Pedro L. Pancorbo-Hidalgo,et al.  Risk Assessment Scales for Predicting the Risk of Developing Pressure Ulcers , 2006 .

[37]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..