Evaluating the Consistency and Quality of Search Strategies and Methodology in Cochrane Urology Group Systematic Reviews

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorLyon, Jennifer
dc.contributor.authorPrice, Carrie
dc.contributor.authorSaragossi, Jamie
dc.contributor.authorTran, Clara
dc.contributor.departmentTowson University. Albert S. Cook Library. Research and Instructionen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-06T22:48:49Z
dc.date.available2022-06-06T22:48:49Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.descriptionThis was a study that never got published.en_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Systematic reviews (SRs) are the foundation of evidence-based medicine. As essential tools for synthesizing and evaluating evidence, they guide informed decision-making for clinicians and other stakeholders. In particular, the SRs produced by The Cochrane Collaboration are considered to be standards of methodological rigor and comprehensiveness. Therefore, it is imperative that Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) adhere to the highest standards, particularly in terms of the fundamental collection of evidence represented by databases searching and transparency of reporting search methods. Methods: To assess the quality of searches and reporting in 65 Cochrane Urology Group Systematic Reviews and Protocols covering the past 2 decades, the authors created an evaluation form based on the PRESS Checklist, the Cochrane Handbook, and the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. The search methodology, strategies, and reporting for each was independently reviewed by two librarians; any conflicts were resolved by group discussion. Results: Comprehensive search methodology reporting, quality and inclusion of the search strategies varied widely over time. Fifteen percent (10/65) did not report a single full search strategy, and 62% (40/65) did not include search strategies for all databases reported. Errors in search strategies included line number mistakes, misspellings, incorrect syntax, and incorrect subject headings. Conclusion: While CSRs are highly esteemed for methodological exactitude in other areas, they remain in need of improved search quality and reporting. Transparent reporting of search methods and reproducible search strategies is vital to the future of SRs if they are to continue to be a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine.en_US
dc.format.extent28 pagesen_US
dc.genrepreprintsen_US
dc.genrejournal articlesen_US
dc.identifierdoi:10.13016/m2z1wv-bo7o
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11603/24830
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relation.isAvailableAtTowson University
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United Statesen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/*
dc.subjectSystematic reviews (Medical research)en_US
dc.subjectMethodsen_US
dc.subjectDatabase searchingen_US
dc.subjectReview literature as topicen_US
dc.subjectSystematic reviews as topicen_US
dc.subjectQuality of reportingen_US
dc.subjectReproducibility of resultsen_US
dc.titleEvaluating the Consistency and Quality of Search Strategies and Methodology in Cochrane Urology Group Systematic Reviewsen_US
dc.typeTexten_US
dcterms.creatorhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9740-1270en_US
dcterms.creatorhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4345-3547en_US
dcterms.creatorhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8153-1791en_US
dcterms.creatorhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9464-3709en_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
20181220 - Evaluating the Consistency and Quality Cochrane.docx
Size:
47.78 KB
Format:
Microsoft Word XML
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.67 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Price, Carrie