2.2 KiB
| authors | citekey | alias | publish_date | journal | volume | issue | pages | last_import | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
greenhalghEffectivenessEfficiencySearch2005 | greenhalghEffectivenessEfficiencySearch2005 | 2005-11-03 | BMJ | 331 | 7524 | 1064-1065 | 2025-07-30 |
Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources
Indexing Information
Published: 2005-11
DOI 10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68
#InSecondPass
[!Abstract] Objective To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. Results Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by “snowballing” (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. Conclusion Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies.>[!seealso] Related Papers
Annotations
Notes
Highlights From Zotero
[!tip] Brilliant Results Only 30% of sources were obtained from theprotocol defined at the outset of the study (that is,from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by “snowballing” (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% bypersonal knowledge or personal contacts. 2025-05-11 9:33 am
[!done] Important Citation tracking: using special citation trackingdatabases (Science Citation Index, Social Science Cita-tion Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index),we forward tracked selected key papers publishedmore than three years previously, thereby identifying articles in mainstream journals that had subsequentlycited those papers 2025-05-11 9:39 am
[!done] Important Overall, the greatest yield was from pursuing selected references of references 2025-05-11 9:40 am