PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews

Background:Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.Methods:The checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.Results:The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.Conclusions:The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.     

The NICE OECD countries' geographic search filters: Part 2—validation of the MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) filters

Objective:We previously developed draft MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) geographic search filters for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries to assess their feasibility for finding evidence about the countries. Here, we describe the validation of these search filters.Methods:We identified OECD country references from thirty National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines to generate gold standard sets for MEDLINE (n=2,065) and Embase (n=2,023). We validated the filters by calculating their recall against these sets. We then applied the filters to existing search strategies for three OECD-focused NICE guideline reviews (NG103 on flu vaccination, NG140 on abortion care, and NG146 on workplace health) to calculate the filters'' impact on the number needed to read (NNR) of the searches.Results:The filters both achieved 99.95% recall against the gold standard sets. Both filters achieved 100% recall for the three NICE guideline reviews. The MEDLINE filter reduced NNR from 256 to 232 for the NG103 review, from 38 to 27 for the NG140 review, and from 631 to 591 for the NG146 review. The Embase filter reduced NNR from 373 to 341 for the NG103 review, from 101 to 76 for the NG140 review, and from 989 to 925 for the NG146 review.Conclusion:The NICE OECD countries'' search filters are the first validated filters for the countries. They can save time for research topics about OECD countries by finding the majority of evidence about OECD countries while reducing search result volumes in comparison to no filter use.     

The NICE OECD countries’ geographic search filters: Part 1—methodology for developing the draft MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) filters

Objective:There are no existing validated search filters for the group of 37 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. This study describes how information specialists from the United Kingdom''s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed and evaluated novel OECD countries’ geographic search filters for MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) to improve literature search effectiveness for evidence about OECD countries.Methods:We created the draft filters using an alternative approach to standard filter construction. They are composed entirely of geographic subject headings and are designed to retain OECD country evidence by excluding non-OECD country evidence using the NOT Boolean operator. To evaluate the draft filters’ effectiveness, we used MEDLINE and Embase literature searches for three NICE guidelines that retrieved >5,000 search results. A 10% sample of the excluded references was screened to check that OECD country evidence was not inadvertently excluded.Results:The draft MEDLINE filter reduced results for each NICE guideline by 9.5% to 12.9%. In Embase, search results were reduced by 10.7% to 14%. Of the sample references, 7 of 910 (0.8%) were excluded inadvertently. These references were from a guideline about looked-after minors that concerns both OECD and non-OECD countries.Conclusion:The draft filters look promising—they reduced search result volumes while retaining most OECD country evidence from MEDLINE and Embase. However, we advise caution when using them in topics about both non-OECD and OECD countries. We have created final versions of the search filters and will validate them in a future study.     

A user-centric approach to identifying best deployment strategies for language tools: the impact of content and access language on Web user behaviour and attitudes

The number of Web users whose first language is not English continues to grow, as does the amount of content provided in languages other than English. This poses new challenges for actors on the Web, such as in which language(s) content should be offered, how search tools should deal with mono- and multilingual content, and how users can make the best use of navigation and search options, suited to their individual linguistic skills. How should these challenges be dealt with? Technological approaches to non-English (or in general, cross-language) Web search have made large progress; however, translation remains a hard problem. This precludes a low-cost but high-quality blanket all-language coverage of the whole Web. In this paper, we propose a user-centric approach to answering questions of where to best concentrate efforts and investments. Drawing on linguistic research, we describe data on the availability of content and access to it in first and second languages across the Web. We then present three studies that investigated the impact of the availability (or not) of first-language content and access forms on user behaviour and attitudes. The results indicate that non-English languages are under-represented on the Web and that this is partly due to content-creation, link-setting and link-following behaviour. They also show that user satisfaction is influenced both by the cognitive effort of searching and the availability of alternative information in that language. These findings suggest that more cross-language tools are desirable. However, they also indicate that context (such as user groups’ domain expertise or site type) should be considered when tradeoffs between information quality and multilinguality need to be taken into account.     

Sensitivity and precision of adverse effects search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE: a case study of fractures with thiazolidinediones

Background: Search filters have been developed in MEDLINE and EMBASE to help overcome the challenges of searching electronic databases for information on adverse effects. However, little evaluation of their effectiveness has been carried out. Objectives: To measure the sensitivity and precision of available adverse effects search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Methods: A case study systematic review of fracture related adverse effects associated with the use of thiazolidinediones was used. Twelve MEDLINE search strategies and three EMBASE search strategies were tested. Results: Nineteen relevant references from MEDLINE and 24 from EMBASE were included in the review. Four search filters in MEDLINE achieved high sensitivity (95 or 100%) with an improved level of precision from searches without any adverse effects filter. High precision in MEDLINE could also be achieved (up to 53%) using search filters that rely on Medical Subject Headings. No search filter in EMBASE achieved high precision (all were under 5%) and the highest sensitivity in EMBASE was 83%. Conclusions: Adverse effects search filters appear to be effective in MEDLINE for achieving either high sensitivity or high precision. Search filters in EMBASE, however, do not appear as effective, particularly in improving precision.     

Do-It-Yourself for Course Reserves: A Student-Driven Service in an Academic Library

Texas A&M University Libraries has been hard at work putting the power of course reserves in the hands of its users. Reserves services have traditionally been restrictive, granting only faculty the authority to place items on reserve or allowing students access to items only after they have been checked out. From faculty adding streaming content to their e-reserves to students having hands-on access to their course reserves, this article tells the story of how an academic library system is allowing its patrons to “do-it-themselves.”