Search Hit on Databases for Writing Systematic Review

• Periodical Listing
• J Med Libr Assoc
• v.105(3); 2017 Jul
• PMC5490709

J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jul; 105(3): 285–289.

Updating search strategies for systematic reviews using EndNote

Received 2017 Jan i; Accepted 2017 Feb i.

Performing, writing, and publishing a systematic review have a long fourth dimension. In a cohort of periodical-published systematic reviews, Cochrane reviews, and health technology cess reports, the median time lag betwixt the stated final search appointment and publication was 61 weeks (interquartile range, 33–87 weeks) [1]. In the same cohort of reviews, vii% were out of date at the time of publication [two]. More than recently, an examination of 182 systematic reviews performed at Erasmus Medical Middle showed that the median fourth dimension between the first search and the appearance of the resulting review in PubMed was 89 weeks (interquartile range, 63–126 weeks).

To maximize the currency of a review, an update of the search is recommended before submission for publication. The Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) standards requires: "Rerun or update searches for all relevant databases within 12 months earlier publication" [3]. Many handbooks and guidelines for performing systematic reviews country that search strategies should be updated regularly to keep track of newly added references on the topic [4–half dozen].

Recent guidance from an international panel of authors, editors, clinicians, statisticians, information specialists, other methodologists, and guideline developers considered various aspects of updating reviews, including efficient searching. Such efficiencies included refinements based on the yield of the original search and incorporation of technological advances in searching. Garner et al. provided practical guidance on refining the original search in their appendix 2 [7].

The Cochrane handbook mentions in chapter 3.4.2.1 ("Re-executing the search") using the last date of the original search every bit the beginning date for the update, which is mutual practice, but chapter 6.4.12 ("Updating searches") does not describe a clear method [8]. The date that the record became accessible through searching, rather than the publication date, is the relevant field for updating. The user can cull from the thesaurus date (i.e., the date that the thesaurus terms were added), the date of the last metadata change, or the date of entry into the database. For example, the National Library of Medicine recommends using the Create date (CRDT in PubMed) field for its databases [7]. The MeSH date field (MHDA in PubMed), which is the date the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were added to the tape, also has some advantages. Still, some interfaces, such every bit Web of Scientific discipline, exercise non provide record dates that could guide updating. In such cases, searchers can employ publication date and a safe overlapping menstruation, resulting in extensive duplication with records retrieved in the original search.

Complicating matters further, the search may accept been modified since the concluding search appointment. For case, new words may take been added to the original search strategy, based on relevant terms found in studies included in the original review. These novel terms need to be searched in all the databases that were queried in the original search from the original starting date, thus requiring even more complicated search structures and date ranges. Hence, to many authors, updating a search can seem to be a complicated and uncertain task. It need not be.

The authors accept developed a method for updating existing reviews that uses EndNote reference direction software [nine]. The technique uses two EndNote files: one containing the current results as they are downloaded from the complete set of databases, as if it were a commencement search; and one with the results of the previous or original search. By subtracting records found in the original search from the electric current results through EndNote'south customizable de-duplication feature, only records that were non screened in the original search will remain in the library. Another group has previously alluded to a similar process: "download all references from the update search and directly de-indistinguishable them with the references from the initial search (e.g., using Endnote)" [x].

Here, we draw the procedure in step-by-step detail. The steps will be identical in whatsoever recent version of EndNote. The method was commencement developed with the Microsoft Windows version of EndNote X3 and has been fairly consequent until the electric current version, X8. The same steps are too applicative for Macintosh editions past replacing the standard Windows controls with the corresponding Macintosh controls: for instance, command-A instead of control-A or command-click instead of control-click.

A NEW METHOD FOR UPDATING EXISTING SEARCHES

The initial search requires no extra action. We practise recommend thorough de-duplication in EndNote past the process described in an earlier article by Bramer et al. [xi]. This earlier article also describes how substantial differences in the way single manufactures are represented in various databases can be resolved. It describes how page numbers from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library can exist completed, turning abbreviated pagination (eastward.g., 1008–12) into full format pagination (e.m., 1008–1012) equally is used in other databases. The earlier article also recommends importing full periodical titles instead of abbreviations. If these steps are followed, the method described in this article volition be easier to follow. The following description volition nevertheless be effective if the libraries were de-duplicated using other sequences in EndNote merely will require additional intendance to ensure that novel articles are non eliminated.

The offset steps in the updating process serve to create an EndNote file containing all results from the new or current search every bit they are retrieved on the new date. This search's appointment should at present exist considered the last date searched, and the number of records retrieved from this search will exist used in the published PRISMA flow chart. In the process, a compressed library (.enlx file) tin serve as an archive and be used in subsequent updates to place and remove previously screened records.

Step 1: Rerun the search

1. If search terms are to be inverse or added, make those changes to the search strategies.

2. Run the searches in all databases from the original starting engagement (rather than limiting from the previous search engagement) and import all results into EndNote.

3. De-duplicate the EndNote file (preferably as described by Bramer et al. [11]).

4. Create a compressed EndNote Library (.enlx file) of the consummate search results, and store it for possible utilise in future updates. This fix of results should exist reported in the published review equally the number of records reviewed by title and/or abstruse. A method to review titles and abstracts in EndNote is published in a previous article by Bramer et al. [12].

Records from the original search take already been screened and need not exist seen again. To remove these records from the current search results, the former records are added to the EndNote Library containing the records from the new search. By means of indistinguishable detection, matching pairs of records (one from the original search and the other from the new search) can be identified and removed, leaving but new records that have nonetheless to be screened.

Step 2: Re-create the original search results in the new EndNote file

1. Open up the EndNote library that contains all results found on the last search engagement before the current date. If this was an update of an earlier search, use the complete compressed library that was created at that time.

2. Printing <Ctrl-A> to select all references. Right-click on one of the references and from the resulting carte, select Copy References to. Now, select the EndNote Library containing the results of the electric current search. This volition move all the records in this library to the new library. Copied records volition appear in a new grouping called Copied References. Using the Copy References to control instead of copying and pasting or importing records facilitates the identification of records from the previous search.

Pace three: Identify and remove records retrieved by both the previous and new searches

1. Go to the EndNote file containing the onetime and new references.

2. Change the default duplicate settings by going to Edit > Preferences > Duplicates. (The Preferences menu option tin be found under the EndNote menu on the Mac.) Select the fields: Writer, Twelvemonth, Title, Secondary Championship (Journal).

3. Select one random reference in the All References group to ensure that this group is agile.

4. Go to References > Notice Duplicates. Click on Cancel in the Find Duplicates dialog box to reveal the Duplicate References group.

5. Press <Ctrl-A> to select all references in the Indistinguishable References grouping. Press <Delete> to remove all references in the grouping, or elevate the references to the trash.

6. Repeat stride 3: 2–5 for the Writer, Twelvemonth, Title, Pages fields.

If the original search was executed in the recent by and used the same methods for import into EndNote, the Copied References group should exist well-nigh empty after this stride. If the original search was performed long before the update took identify or the initial search had been performed by another searcher, possibly using unlike export methods and interfaces, in that location may be a large number of remaining unmatched references from the original search in the Copied References group. If so, follow two extra steps of the method described in Bramer et al. [xi]. Stride 3: 2–5 can be repeated with the Title, Volume, Pages fields and so with the Author, Volume, Pages fields; even so, in these cases, references without page numbers should exist assessed for duplicates, and true duplicates should be manually selected. To do this, afterwards step 3: 4, click on the Pages column heading to sort by page number. References with page numbers can be deleted without manual assessment. If the Pages column heading is non visible in the reference table, go to Edit > Preferences > Display Fields, and select the Pages field in one of the columns.

Footstep 4: Compare old and new records on similar titles or authors

In the adjacent steps, the new results are compared with the original results on title. This requires quick transmission cess to foreclose removing two new, independent search results that share the exact title.

1. Go to Edit > Preferences > Duplicates, and select but the Championship field. (The Preferences card choice can be establish under the EndNote bill of fare on the Mac.)

2. Select one random reference in the All References group to ensure the group is active.

3. Become to References > Detect Duplicates, and click Abolish in the next screen.

4. Go to the Copied References group, select ane reference and press <Ctrl-A> to select all references from the previous search.

5. Become to the Duplicate References group to browse this set for duplicates. Click on the Title column heading to sort by title. True duplicates can be easily institute by observing the pattern of blue and white lines. As long as white lines and blue lines are in a somewhat regular, i-past-one pattern, the pairs will consist of one reference from the former results and one reference from the new results. Occasionally, groups of two blue or two white lines might appear because the sorting is irregular. If, however, a group of more than than 2 white lines is observed or two sequent groups of two white references, this means that some of these references are not from the previous search results only are two electric current records with identical titles that represent different manufactures. These should not be selected for deletion. Effigy i shows an example of such a pattern modify. In this case, the references from authors Flexman and Afilalo should non be deleted, as they are not duplicates.

   

   Recognition of blueprint change in blue and white references, indicating a indistinguishable that should not be removed; the references in the black boxes are updates and should all be removed

6. Select references in sequences with regular blueish-white patterns by using <Ctrl-Click> to select the beginning of such a sequence and <Shift-Click> to end a pick. This might crave some practice if the user is unfamiliar with this option.

7. Subsequently all regular sequences have been selected, press <Delete> to remove all duplicate references or drag the duplicate references to the trash.

8. Repeat step 4: 1–7 for the Author, Year field combination.

9. Go to the Copied References binder, and delete any references in that folder. These are the references that were found in the previous search but that were non found in the current search. They should not be reviewed again.

Correct REPRESENTATION IN THE PRISMA Catamenia CHART

A consequence of this method is that the reference numbers and totals required for the PRISMA menses nautical chart might non match, as the sum of the novel and one-time records might not equal the contents of the new EndNote library. This discrepancy tin be attributed to several normal database activities: updates to individual records (such as added volume and folio numbers or a inverse publication year after an article appeared in impress), global changes to controlled vocabulary, recent improver of older material to the database, or the dropping out of high relevance ranking in Google Scholar. Additionally, records with publication dates that antedate the previous search volition appear among the novel records. This can be the event of both changes to controlled vocabulary. Revising and calculation to the search strategy will also result, appropriately, in retrieving novel records from before the date of the previous search likewise. Hence, the most reliable method of correcting the numbers for publication in the PRISMA flowchart is backward correction.

Typically, the total number of unique records retrieved is reported both in the results section of a systematic review and in the PRISMA flow chart detailing the search and subsequent screening. For updated searches, the most appropriate number to report is the total number of records remaining in the updated search after removing duplicates. This number represents the minimum number of records screened for all searches. For dates of coverage, authors demand only report the beginning date of coverage for each database and the date of the latest update, every bit the numbers of records are accurate for all searches at this indicate in time. The total number of full-text articles read will be the sum of the articles read in all the previous searches plus the number of articles read in current search. The number of articles excluded based on title abstract, for which no specific reason has to be given, is the total number of records remaining in the updated search minus the total number of full-text articles read. The numbers of records or articles excluded for the specific reasons in the full-text review stage can be summed over the previous and updated searches.

The records described in step 4: 9 are records that had been constitute during the original search but that were non found in the update search. This state of affairs can occur if a search strategy during the update is narrowed compared to the original search strategy or if certain databases that had been searched initially were not searched during the update. If the search strategy has been narrowed, it is necessary to clinch that the included references from the original search results are still retrieved past the electric current searches.

Give-and-take

We provide a method to only decrease previously screened results from updated systematic review searches. By using this method, searchers spare themselves the time and effort required to reconcile update dates across platforms. Our method is described for utilise with EndNote bibliographic management software, although it might feasibly be adapted to other bibliographic managers. However, for optimal implementation of this method, such a program requires customizable settings for indistinguishable detection and the option to remove both indistinguishable references. We are unaware of a bibliographic manager that is as flexible as EndNote in this regard. Virtually software uses a standard de-duplication algorithm and is set to merge duplicate references instead of removing them.

There is no consistent, widely accepted method of updating searches. Our method suggests a simple standard for both carrying out and reporting updates that requires giving only the total number of records from the inception of the original search to the date of the last update, along with any revisions to the search itself. In reporting only these details, authors give an accurate representation of the state of the database and the response to the query on the date of the last search. The only information that is lost is the number of records retrieved and screened in previous searches that did not match records in the updated query. Rerunning and de-duplicating the updated search obviates the confusing task of choosing and reporting a date field for the starting time date of the new search (e.m., publication date, thesaurus appointment, creation appointment).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Margaret Sampson, AHIP, from the Children'due south Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada, for her input on earlier drafts of this article.

Biography

Wichor Bramer, ln.cmsumsare@remarb.w, Biomedical Information Specialist, Medical Library, Erasmus MC–Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Paul Bain, ude.dravrah.smh@niabp, Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Academy Medical School, Boston, MA

REFERENCES

1. Sampson M, Shojania KG, McGowan J, Daniel R, Rader T, Iansavichene AE, Ji J, Ansari MT, Moher D. Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Aug;61(8):755–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Shojania KG, Sampson One thousand, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette Due south, Moher D. How quickly practice systematic reviews go out of engagement? a survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Aug 21;147(4):224–33. doi: ten.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

four. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco A, Eccles 1000, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, Barrowman N. When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan;23(ane):MR000023. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Shojania KG, Sampson Thou, Ansari MT, Ji J, Garritty C, Rader T, Moher D. Updating systematic reviews. Rockville, Medico: Agency for Healthcare Enquiry and Quality (US); 2007. Sep, [Google Scholar]

six. Stovold Eastward, Beecher D, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Report menstruation diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA menstruation diagram. Syst Rev. 2014 May 29;three:54. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-54. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Akl EA, Beyene J, Chang Southward, Churchill R, Dearness K, Guyatt G, Lefebvre C, Liles B, Marshall R, Martínez García L, Mavergames C, Nasser Chiliad, Qaseem A, Sampson Thou, Soares-Weiser Yard, Takwoingi Y, Thabane L, Trivella M, Tugwell P, Welsh Due east, Wilson EC, Schünemann HJ. Panel for updating guidance for systematic reviews (PUGs). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed) 2016 Jul 20;354:i3507. (Erratum. BMJ. 2016 Sep 6;354:i4853.) [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Higgins JPT, Light-green Southward. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley Online Library; 2008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Thomson Reuters. EndNote X7. 2015.

---

Articles from Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA are provided here courtesy of Medical Library Association

---

mcdonaldhationge41.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5490709/

Share this post