A study of search strategy availability statements and sharing practices for systematic reviews: Ask and you might receive

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Research Synthesis Methods Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1002/jrsm.1696
Christine J. Neilson, Zahra Premji
{"title":"A study of search strategy availability statements and sharing practices for systematic reviews: Ask and you might receive","authors":"Christine J. Neilson,&nbsp;Zahra Premji","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The literature search underpins data collection for all systematic reviews (SRs). The SR reporting guideline PRISMA, and its extensions, aim to facilitate research transparency and reproducibility, and ultimately improve the quality of research, by instructing authors to provide specific research materials and data upon publication of the manuscript. Search strategies are one item of data that are explicitly included in PRISMA and the critical appraisal tool AMSTAR2. Yet some authors use search availability statements implying that the search strategies are available upon request instead of providing strategies up front. We sought out reviews with search availability statements, characterized them, and requested the search strategies from authors via email. Over half of the included reviews cited PRISMA but less than a third included any search strategies. After requesting the strategies via email as instructed, we received replies from 46% of authors, and eventually received at least one search strategy from 36% of authors. Requesting search strategies via email has a low chance of success. Ask and you might receive—but you probably will not. SRs that do not make search strategies available are low quality at best according to AMSTAR2; Journal editors can and should enforce the requirement for authors to include their search strategies alongside their SR manuscripts.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"15 3","pages":"441-449"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1696","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1696","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The literature search underpins data collection for all systematic reviews (SRs). The SR reporting guideline PRISMA, and its extensions, aim to facilitate research transparency and reproducibility, and ultimately improve the quality of research, by instructing authors to provide specific research materials and data upon publication of the manuscript. Search strategies are one item of data that are explicitly included in PRISMA and the critical appraisal tool AMSTAR2. Yet some authors use search availability statements implying that the search strategies are available upon request instead of providing strategies up front. We sought out reviews with search availability statements, characterized them, and requested the search strategies from authors via email. Over half of the included reviews cited PRISMA but less than a third included any search strategies. After requesting the strategies via email as instructed, we received replies from 46% of authors, and eventually received at least one search strategy from 36% of authors. Requesting search strategies via email has a low chance of success. Ask and you might receive—but you probably will not. SRs that do not make search strategies available are low quality at best according to AMSTAR2; Journal editors can and should enforce the requirement for authors to include their search strategies alongside their SR manuscripts.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统性综述的检索策略可用性声明和共享实践研究:有问必答
文献检索是所有系统综述 (SR) 数据收集的基础。系统综述报告指南 PRISMA 及其扩展版旨在通过指导作者在发表稿件时提供具体的研究材料和数据,提高研究的透明度和可重复性,并最终提高研究质量。检索策略是PRISMA和关键评价工具AMSTAR2中明确包含的一项数据。但有些作者使用检索可用性声明,暗示检索策略可应要求提供,而不是预先提供策略。我们寻找了带有检索可用性声明的综述,对其进行了特征描述,并通过电子邮件向作者索要检索策略。超过一半的收录综述引用了 PRISMA,但只有不到三分之一的综述包含任何检索策略。按照指示通过电子邮件索取检索策略后,我们收到了 46% 的作者的回复,最终从 36% 的作者那里收到了至少一份检索策略。通过电子邮件索取检索策略的成功率很低。提出请求,你可能会收到,但很可能收不到。根据AMSTAR2,不提供检索策略的SR充其量只是低质量SR;期刊编辑可以也应该强制要求作者在SR稿件中附上检索策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A tutorial on aggregating evidence from conceptual replication studies using the product Bayes factor Evolving use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool in biomedical systematic reviews Exploring methodological approaches used in network meta-analysis of psychological interventions: A scoping review An evaluation of the performance of stopping rules in AI-aided screening for psychological meta-analytical research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1