Cargando…

Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: Systematic identification of evidence in health policy can be time-consuming and challenging. This study examines three questions pertaining to systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy, in order to identify the most efficient search methods: (1) What percentage of the primary stud...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hanneke, Rosie, Young, Sabrina K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28789703
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0543-2
_version_ 1783255944829861888
author Hanneke, Rosie
Young, Sabrina K.
author_facet Hanneke, Rosie
Young, Sabrina K.
author_sort Hanneke, Rosie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Systematic identification of evidence in health policy can be time-consuming and challenging. This study examines three questions pertaining to systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy, in order to identify the most efficient search methods: (1) What percentage of the primary studies selected for inclusion in the reviews originated in scholarly as opposed to gray literature? (2) How much of the primary scholarly literature in this topic area is indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE? (3) Which databases index the greatest number of primary studies not indexed in PubMed, and are these databases searched consistently across systematic reviews? METHODS: We identified systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy and explored their search methods and citations. We determined the percentage of scholarly vs. gray literature cited, the most frequently cited journals, and whether each primary study was indexed in PubMed. We searched 21 databases for all primary study articles not indexed in PubMed to determine which database(s) indexed the highest number of these relevant articles. RESULTS: In total, 21 systematic reviews were identified. Ten of the 21 systematic reviews reported searching gray literature, and 12 reviews ultimately included gray literature in their analyses. Scholarly articles accounted for 577 of the 649 total primary study papers. Of these, 495 (76%) were indexed in PubMed. Google Scholar retrieved the highest number of the remaining 82 non-PubMed scholarly articles, followed by Scopus and EconLit. The Journal of the American Dietetic Association was the most-cited journal. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers can maximize search efficiency by searching a small yet targeted selection of both scholarly and gray literature resources. A highly sensitive search of PubMed and those databases that index the greatest number of relevant articles not indexed in PubMed, namely multidisciplinary and economics databases, could save considerable time and effort. When combined with a gray literature search and additional search methods, including cited reference searching and consulting with experts, this approach could help maintain broad retrieval of relevant studies while improving search efficiency. Findings also have implications for designing specialized databases for public health research. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0543-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5549286
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55492862017-08-09 Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews Hanneke, Rosie Young, Sabrina K. Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Systematic identification of evidence in health policy can be time-consuming and challenging. This study examines three questions pertaining to systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy, in order to identify the most efficient search methods: (1) What percentage of the primary studies selected for inclusion in the reviews originated in scholarly as opposed to gray literature? (2) How much of the primary scholarly literature in this topic area is indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE? (3) Which databases index the greatest number of primary studies not indexed in PubMed, and are these databases searched consistently across systematic reviews? METHODS: We identified systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy and explored their search methods and citations. We determined the percentage of scholarly vs. gray literature cited, the most frequently cited journals, and whether each primary study was indexed in PubMed. We searched 21 databases for all primary study articles not indexed in PubMed to determine which database(s) indexed the highest number of these relevant articles. RESULTS: In total, 21 systematic reviews were identified. Ten of the 21 systematic reviews reported searching gray literature, and 12 reviews ultimately included gray literature in their analyses. Scholarly articles accounted for 577 of the 649 total primary study papers. Of these, 495 (76%) were indexed in PubMed. Google Scholar retrieved the highest number of the remaining 82 non-PubMed scholarly articles, followed by Scopus and EconLit. The Journal of the American Dietetic Association was the most-cited journal. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers can maximize search efficiency by searching a small yet targeted selection of both scholarly and gray literature resources. A highly sensitive search of PubMed and those databases that index the greatest number of relevant articles not indexed in PubMed, namely multidisciplinary and economics databases, could save considerable time and effort. When combined with a gray literature search and additional search methods, including cited reference searching and consulting with experts, this approach could help maintain broad retrieval of relevant studies while improving search efficiency. Findings also have implications for designing specialized databases for public health research. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0543-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5549286/ /pubmed/28789703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0543-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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
Hanneke, Rosie
Young, Sabrina K.
Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews
title Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews
title_full Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews
title_fullStr Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews
title_full_unstemmed Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews
title_short Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews
title_sort information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28789703
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0543-2
work_keys_str_mv AT hannekerosie informationsourcesforobesitypreventionpolicyresearchareviewofsystematicreviews
AT youngsabrinak informationsourcesforobesitypreventionpolicyresearchareviewofsystematicreviews