Cargando…

Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions

BACKGROUND: The value of citation searches as part of the systematic review process is currently unknown. While the major guides to conducting systematic reviews state that citation searching should be carried out in addition to searching bibliographic databases there are still few studies in the li...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wright, Kath, Golder, Su, Rodriguez-Lopez, Rocio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048585/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24893958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-73
_version_ 1782480552459239424
author Wright, Kath
Golder, Su
Rodriguez-Lopez, Rocio
author_facet Wright, Kath
Golder, Su
Rodriguez-Lopez, Rocio
author_sort Wright, Kath
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The value of citation searches as part of the systematic review process is currently unknown. While the major guides to conducting systematic reviews state that citation searching should be carried out in addition to searching bibliographic databases there are still few studies in the literature that support this view. Rather than using a predefined search strategy to retrieve studies, citation searching uses known relevant papers to identify further papers. METHODS: We describe a case study about the effectiveness of using the citation sources Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science and OVIDSP MEDLINE to identify records for inclusion in a systematic review. We used the 40 included studies identified by traditional database searches from one systematic review of interventions for multiple risk behaviours. We searched for each of the included studies in the four citation sources to retrieve the details of all papers that have cited these studies. We carried out two analyses; the first was to examine the overlap between the four citation sources to identify which citation tool was the most useful; the second was to investigate whether the citation searches identified any relevant records in addition to those retrieved by the original database searches. RESULTS: The highest number of citations was retrieved from Google Scholar (1680), followed by Scopus (1173), then Web of Science (1095) and lastly OVIDSP (213). To retrieve all the records identified by the citation tracking searching all four resources was required. Google Scholar identified the highest number of unique citations. The citation tracking identified 9 studies that met the review’s inclusion criteria. Eight of these had already been identified by the traditional databases searches and identified in the screening process while the ninth was not available in any of the databases when the original searches were carried out. It would, however, have been identified by two of the database search strategies if searches had been carried out later. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results from this investigation, citation searching as a supplementary search method for systematic reviews may not be the best use of valuable time and resources. It would be useful to verify these findings in other reviews.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4048585
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40485852014-06-23 Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions Wright, Kath Golder, Su Rodriguez-Lopez, Rocio BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: The value of citation searches as part of the systematic review process is currently unknown. While the major guides to conducting systematic reviews state that citation searching should be carried out in addition to searching bibliographic databases there are still few studies in the literature that support this view. Rather than using a predefined search strategy to retrieve studies, citation searching uses known relevant papers to identify further papers. METHODS: We describe a case study about the effectiveness of using the citation sources Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science and OVIDSP MEDLINE to identify records for inclusion in a systematic review. We used the 40 included studies identified by traditional database searches from one systematic review of interventions for multiple risk behaviours. We searched for each of the included studies in the four citation sources to retrieve the details of all papers that have cited these studies. We carried out two analyses; the first was to examine the overlap between the four citation sources to identify which citation tool was the most useful; the second was to investigate whether the citation searches identified any relevant records in addition to those retrieved by the original database searches. RESULTS: The highest number of citations was retrieved from Google Scholar (1680), followed by Scopus (1173), then Web of Science (1095) and lastly OVIDSP (213). To retrieve all the records identified by the citation tracking searching all four resources was required. Google Scholar identified the highest number of unique citations. The citation tracking identified 9 studies that met the review’s inclusion criteria. Eight of these had already been identified by the traditional databases searches and identified in the screening process while the ninth was not available in any of the databases when the original searches were carried out. It would, however, have been identified by two of the database search strategies if searches had been carried out later. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results from this investigation, citation searching as a supplementary search method for systematic reviews may not be the best use of valuable time and resources. It would be useful to verify these findings in other reviews. BioMed Central 2014-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4048585/ /pubmed/24893958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-73 Text en Copyright © 2014 Wright et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wright, Kath
Golder, Su
Rodriguez-Lopez, Rocio
Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions
title Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions
title_full Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions
title_fullStr Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions
title_full_unstemmed Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions
title_short Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions
title_sort citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048585/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24893958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-73
work_keys_str_mv AT wrightkath citationsearchingasystematicreviewcasestudyofmultipleriskbehaviourinterventions
AT goldersu citationsearchingasystematicreviewcasestudyofmultipleriskbehaviourinterventions
AT rodriguezlopezrocio citationsearchingasystematicreviewcasestudyofmultipleriskbehaviourinterventions