Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Sep 8;9(9):MR000054.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000054.pub2.

Search strategies (filters) to identify systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase

Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay  1 , Luis Garegnani  1 , Virginia Garrote  2 , Ivan Solà  3 , Juan Va Franco  4
Affiliations
Review

Search strategies (filters) to identify systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase

Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Bibliographic databases provide access to an international body of scientific literature in health and medical sciences. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for clinicians, researchers, consumers, and policymakers as they address a specific health-related question and use explicit methods to identify, appraise and synthesize evidence from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. Methodological search filters help database end-users search the literature effectively with different levels of sensitivity and specificity. These filters have been developed for various study designs and have been found to be particularly useful for intervention studies. Other filters have been developed for finding systematic reviews. Considering the variety and number of available search filters for systematic reviews, there is a need for a review of them in order to provide evidence about their retrieval properties at the time they were developed.

Objectives: To review systematically empirical studies that report the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase.

Search methods: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2023: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) and Science Citation Index (Web of Science).

Selection criteria: We included studies if one of their primary objectives is the development, evaluation, or comparison of a search filter that could be used to retrieve systematic reviews on MEDLINE, Embase, or both.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-specified and piloted data extraction form using InterTASC Information Specialist Subgroup (ISSG) Search Filter Evaluation Checklist.

Main results: We identified eight studies that developed filters for MEDLINE and three studies that developed filters for Embase. Most studies are very old and some were limited to systematic reviews in specific clinical areas. Six included studies reported the sensitivity of their developed filter. Seven studies reported precision and six studies reported specificity. Only one study reported the number needed to read and positive predictive value. None of the filters were designed to differentiate systematic reviews on the basis of their methodological quality. For MEDLINE, all filters showed similar sensitivity and precision, and one filter showed higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited study reports that may affect accuracy assessments. The report of these studies had some limitations, and the assessments of their accuracy may suffer from indirectness, considering that they were mostly developed before the release of the PRISMA 2009 statement or due to their limited scope in the selection of systematic review topics. Search filters for MEDLINE Three studies produced filters with sensitivity > 90% with variable degrees of precision, and only one of them was developed and validated in a gold-standard database, which allowed the calculation of specificity. The other two search filters had lower levels of sensitivity. One of these produced a filter with higher levels of specificity (> 90%). All filters showed similar sensitivity and precision in the external validation, except for one which was not externally validated and another one which was conceptually derived and only externally validated. Search filters for Embase We identified three studies that developed filters for this database. One of these studies developed filters with variable sensitivity and precision, including highly sensitive strategies (> 90%); however, it was not externally validated. The other study produced a filter with a lower sensitivity (72.7%) but high specificity (99.1%) with a similar performance in the external validation.

Authors' conclusions: Studies reporting the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE showed similar sensitivity and precision, with one filter showing higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited information about how the filter was produced, which leaves us uncertain about their performance assessments. Newer filters had limitations in their methods or scope, including very focused subject topics for their gold standards, limiting their applicability across other topics. Our findings highlight that consensus guidance on the conduct of search filters and standardized reporting of search filters are needed, as we found highly heterogeneous development methods, accuracy assessments and outcome selection. New strategies adaptable across interfaces could enhance their usability. Moreover, the performance of existing filters needs to be evaluated in light of the impact of reporting guidelines, including the PRISMA 2009, on how systematic reviews are reported. Finally, future filter developments should also consider comparing the filters against a common reference set to establish comparative performance and assess the quality of systematic reviews retrieved by strategies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay: none known.

Luis Garegnani: none known.

Virginia Garrote: none known.

Ivan Solà: none known.

Juan VA Franco: is a Contact Editor for the Cochrane Urology Group and Managing Editor for the Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group. He was not involved in the editorial processing of this review.

Figures

1
1
PRISMA flow diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000054

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

Avau 2021 {published data only}
    1. Avau B, Van Remoortel H, De Buck E. Translation and validation of PubMed and Embase search filters for identification of systematic reviews, intervention studies, and observational studies in the field of first aid. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2021;109(4):599-608. [DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1219] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Boluyt 2008 {published data only}
    1. Boluyt N, Tjosvold L, Lefebvre C, Klassen TP, Offringa M. Usefulness of systematic review search strategies in finding child health systematic reviews in MEDLINE. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2008;162(2):111–6. [DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2007.40] - DOI - PubMed
Boynton 1998 {published data only}
    1. Boynton J Glanville J McDaid D Lefebvre C. Identifying systematic reviews in MEDLINE: developing an objective approach to search strategy design. Journal of Information Science 1998;24(3):137-54. [DOI: 10.1177/016555159802400301] - DOI
Lee 2012 {published data only}
    1. Lee E, Dobbins M, Decorby K, McRae L, Tirilis D, Husson H. An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMC Medical Resarch Methodology 2012;12:51. - PMC - PubMed
Salvador‐Oliván 2021 {published data only}
    1. Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R. Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2021;109(4):561–74. [DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1223] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Shojania 2001 {published data only}
    1. Shojania KG Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Effective Clinical Practice 2001;4(4):157-62. - PubMed
White 2001 {published data only}
    1. White VJ Glanville JM Lefebvre C Sheldon TA. A statistical approach to designing search filters to find systematic reviews: objectivity enhances accuracy. Journal of Information Science 2001;27(6):357-70.
Wilczynski 2007 {published data only}
    1. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, , Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005;330(7482):68. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges Team. EMBASE search strategies achieved high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving methodologically sound systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007;60(1):29-33. - PubMed
    1. Wong SSL, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Comparison of top-performing search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies and systematic reviews in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(4):451-5. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Alexanderson 2004 {published data only}
    1. Alexanderson K, Norlund A. Chapter 2. Methods used for the systematic literature search and for the review of relevance, quality, and evidence of studies. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Supplement 2004;32(63):31-5. - PubMed
Assendelft 2001 {published data only}
    1. Assendelft WJ, Scholten RJ, Hoving JL, Offringa M, Bouter LM. [Systematic reviews in practice. VIII. Searching and assessing systematic reviews].. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 2001;145(34):1625-31. - PubMed
Bayliss 2008 {published data only}
    1. Bayliss Sue E, Davenport C. Locating systematic reviews of test accuracy studies: how five specialist review databases measure up. International Journal ofTtechnology Assessment in Health Care 2008;24(4):403-11. - PubMed
Berg 2006 {published data only}
    1. Berg A, Fleischer S, Behrens J. Development of two search strategies for literature in MEDLINE–PubMed: nursing diagnoses in the context of evidence-based nursing. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications 2006;16(2):26-32. - PubMed
Bethel 2014 {published data only}
    1. Bethel A, Rogers M. A checklist to assess database-hosting platforms for designing and running searches for systematic reviews.. HealthI information and Libraries Journal 2014;31(1):43-53. - PubMed
Bikbov 2018 {published data only}
    1. Bikbov B, Perico N, Remuzzi G, GBD Genitourinary Diseases Expert Group. A comparison of metrics and performance characteristics of different search strategies for article retrieval for a systematic review of the global epidemiology of kidney and urinary diseases.. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2018;18(1):110. - PMC - PubMed
Booth 2016 {published data only}
    1. Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review.. Systematic Reviews 2016;5(101580575):74. - PMC - PubMed
Bradley 2010 {published data only}
    1. Bradley SM. Examination of the clinical queries and systematic review "hedges" in EMBASE and MEDLINE.. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association (JCHLA) 2010;31(2):27-37.
Bramer 2018 {published data only}
    1. Bramer Wichor M, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. Evaluation of a new method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews.. Research synthesis methods 2018;9(4):510-20. - PMC - PubMed
Cals 2016 {published data only}
    1. Cals Jochen WL, Kotz D. Literature review in biomedical research: useful search engines beyond PubMed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016;71(jce, 8801383):115-7. - PubMed
Damarell 2019 {published data only}
    1. Damarell R, May N, Hammond S, Sladek RM, Tieman JJ. Topic search filters: a systematic scoping review.. Health Information and LibrariesJournal 2019;36(1):4-40. - PubMed
Dickersin 1990 {published data only}
    1. Dickersin K, Higgins K, Meinert CL. Identification of meta-analyses. The need for standard terminology. Controlled Clinical Trials 1990;11(1):52-66. - PubMed
Dunikowski 1998 {published data only}
    1. Dunikowski L. Searching for reviews. Canadian Family Physician Medecin de Famille Canadien 1998;44(blo, 0120300):115-6. - PMC - PubMed
Eady 2008 {published data only}
    1. Eady AM, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. PsycINFO search strategies identified methodologically sound therapy studies and review articles for use by clinicians and researchers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(1):34-40. - PMC - PubMed
El Sherif 2016 {published data only}
    1. El Sherif R, Pluye P, Gore G, Granikov V, Hong Quan N. Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 2016;104(1):47-51. - PMC - PubMed
Fenichel 1980 {published data only}
    1. Fenichel CH. The process of searching online bibliographic databases: a review of research. Library Research 1980;2(2):107-27.
Fyfe 2012 {published data only}
    1. Fyfe T, Dennett L. Building capacity in systematic review searching: a pilot program using virtual mentoring. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association (JCHLA) 2012;33(1):12-6.
Glanville 2000 {published data only}
    1. Glanville J, Lefebvre C. Identifying systematic reviews: key resources. ACP Journal Club 2000;132(3):A11-2. - PubMed
Greyson 2019 {published data only}
    1. Greyson D, Rafferty E, Slater L, MacDonald N, Bettinger JA, Dube E, et al. Systematic review searches must be systematic, comprehensive, and transparent: a critique of Perman et al. BMC Public Health 2019;19(1):153. - PMC - PubMed
Grummich 2014 {published data only}
    1. Grummich K, Jensen K, Obst O, Seiler CM, Diener MK. Evidence-based medicine in surgical practice - locating clinical studies and systematic reviews by searching the Medline database. Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie 2014;139 Suppl 2(y5i, 0413645):e116-23. - PubMed
Harari 2020 {published data only}
    1. Harari MB, Parola HR, Hartwell CJ, Riegelman A. Literature searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A review, evaluation, and recommendations. Journal of Vocational Behavior 2020;118:103377. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103377] - DOI
Harbour 2014 {published data only}
    1. Harbour J, Fraser C, Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Beale S, Boachie C, et al. Reporting methodological search filter performance comparisons: a literature review. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2014;31(3):176-94. - PubMed
Hausner 2015 {published data only}
    1. Hausner E, Guddat C, Hermanns T, Lampert U, Waffenschmidt S. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: validation showed the noninferiority of the objective approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015;68(2):191-9. - PubMed
Hausner 2016 {published data only}
    1. Hausner E, Guddat C, Hermanns T, Lampert U, Waffenschmidt S. Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016;77(jce, 8801383):118-24. - PubMed
Huang 2016 {published data only}
    1. Huang Y Yang Z, Wang J, Zhuo L, Li Z, Zhan S. Performance of search strategies to retrieve systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy from the Cochrane Library. Journal of Eidence-Based Medicine 2016;9(8):77-83. [DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12200] - DOI - PubMed
Huang 2017 {published data only}
    1. Huang Y, Yang Z, Wang J, Zhuo L, Li Z, Zhan S. Erratum to: Performance of search strategies to retrieve systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy from the Cochrane Library: Performance of search strategies. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 2017;10(4):332-3. [DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12200] - DOI - PubMed
Jenkins 2004 {published data only}
    1. Jenkins M. Evaluation of methodological search filters--a review.. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2004;21(3):148-63. - PubMed
Lefebvre 2017 {published data only}
    1. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Beale S, Boachie C, Duffy S, Fraser CY, et al. Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 2017;21(69):1-148. - PMC - PubMed
Littlewood 2019 {published data only}
    1. Littlewood A, Kloukos D. Searching the literature for studies for a systematic review. Part 3: Using controlled vocabulary. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 2019;155(4):604-5. - PubMed
Lunny 2016 {published data only}
    1. Lunny C, McKenzie JE, McDonald S. Retrieval of overviews of systematic reviews in MEDLINE was improved by the development of an objectively derived and validated search strategy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016;74:107-18. - PubMed
Methley 2014 {published data only}
    1. Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews.. BMC Health Services Research 2014;14(101088677):579. - PMC - PubMed
Murdoch 2004 {published data only}
    1. Murdoch NH. Searching for systematic reviews. Canadian Oncology nNrsing Journal = Revue Canadienne de Nursing Oncologique 2004;14(3):152-9. - PubMed
Neilson 2019 {published data only}
    1. Neilson C, Le Me-L. A failed attempt at developing a search filter for systematic review methodology articles in Ovid Embase. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 2019;107(2):203-9. - PMC - PubMed
Premji 2020 {published data only}
    1. Premji Z, Ganshorn H. Can database-level MEDLINE exclusion filters in Embase and CINAHL be used to remove duplicate records without loss of relevant studies in systematic reviews? An exploratory study. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association 2020;41(1):3-15.
Salvador‐Oliván 2018 {published data only}
    1. Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R. Systematic reviews in Library and Information Science: analysis and evaluation of the search process [Las revisiones sistemáticas en Biblioteconomía y Documentación: análisis y evaluación del proceso de búsqueda]. Revista Española de Documentación Científica 2018;41(2):1-19. [DOI: 10.3989/redc.2018.2.1491] - DOI
Sindhu 1997 {published data only}
    1. Sindhu F, Dickson R. Literature searching for systematic reviews. Nursing Standard 1997;11(41):40-2. - PubMed
Thompson 2014 {published data only}
    1. Thompson J, Davis J, Mazerolle L. A systematic method for search term selection in systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods 2014;5(2):87-97. - PubMed
Underwood 2020 {published data only}
    1. Underwood PG. Book review: Paul Levay and Jenny Craven (eds), Systematic searching: Practical ideas for improving results. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science 2020;52(3):943-4.
Volpato 2014 {published data only}
    1. Volpato Enilze S N, Betini M, El Dib R. Testing search strategies for systematic reviews in the Medline literature database through PubMed. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2014;20(2):117-20. - PubMed
Volpato 2018 {published data only}
    1. Volpato ES, Betini M, Puga ME, Agarwal A, Cataneo AJ, Oliveira LD, et al. Strategies to optimize MEDLINE and EMBASE search strategies for anesthesiology systematic reviews. An experimental study (vol 135, pg 1, 2018). Sao Paulo Medical Journal 2018;136(1):98-98. - PMC - PubMed
Wilczynski 2011 {published data only}
    1. Wilczynski NL, McKibbon KA, Haynes RB. Sensitive Clinical Queries retrieved relevant systematic reviews as well as primary studies: an analytic survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(12):1341-9. - PubMed
Wong 2006 {published data only}
    1. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Optimal CINAHL strategies for identifying therapy studies and review articles. Scholarsh 2006;38(2):194-9. - PubMed
Wong 2006a {published data only}
    1. Wong Sharon S L, Wilczynski Nancy L, Haynes R Brian. Optimal CINAHL search strategies for identifying therapy studies and review articles.. Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing 2006;38(2):194-9. - PubMed
Wong 2006b {published data only}
    1. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Optimal CINAHL search strategies for identifying therapy studies and review articles: Health policy and systems. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2006;38(2):194-9. - PubMed

Additional references

ACP journal club
    1. ACP journal club. Purpose and Procedure. https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/acpjc/purpose-and-procedure (acceced 15 February 2023).
Adam 2022
    1. Adam GP, Paynter R. Development of literature search strategies for evidence syntheses: pros and cons of incorporating text mining tools and objective approaches. BMJ Evidence Based Medicine 2022;Epub ahead of print:bmjebm-2021-111892. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111892] - DOI - PubMed
Bachmann 2002
    1. Bachmann LM, Coray R, Estermann P, Ter Riet G. Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: reducing the number needed to read. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 2002;9(6):653-8. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Bak 2009
    1. Bak G, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Fitzsimmons H, Morrison A, Maden-Jenkins M. A pragmatic critical appraisal instrument for search filters: introducing the CADTH CAI. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2009;26(3):211-9. - PubMed
Becker 2011
    1. Becker LA, Oxman AD. Chapter 22: Overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Beynon 2013
    1. Beynon R, Leeflang MM, McDonald S, Eisinga A, Mitchell RL, Whiting P, et al. Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 9. Art. No: MR000022. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000022.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
BMJ Clinical Evidence
    1. BMJ Clinical Evidence. Default search strategies used for BMJ Clinical Evidence. http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/search_filters.jsp (acceced 10 May 2022).
Bradley 2010
    1. Bradley SM. Examination of the Clinical Queries and Systematic Review ‘‘hedges’’ in EMBASE and MEDLINE. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada 2010;31:27-37.
Bragge 2011
    1. Bragge P, Clavisi O, Turner T, Tavender E, Collie A, Gruen RL. The Global Evidence Mapping Initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011;11:92. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Bramer 2017
    1. Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews 2017;6(1):245. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Brettle 1998
    1. Brettle AJ, Long AF, Grant MJ, Greenhalgh J. Searching for information on outcomes: do you need to be comprehensive? Quality in Health Care 1998;7(3):163-7. - PMC - PubMed
Chandler 2019
    1. Chandler J, Cumpston M, Thomas J, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Clarke MJ. Chapter I: Introduction. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated August 2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Cochrane Child Health Field 2006
    1. Cochrane Child Health Field. Usefulness of systematic review search strategies in finding child health systematic reviews in MEDLINE. childhealth.cochrane.org (accessed prior to 15 Fevruary 2023).
Cooper 2018
    1. Cooper C, Varley-Campbell J, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R. Systematic review identifies six metrics and one method for assessing literature search effectiveness but no consensus on appropriate use. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2018;99:53-63. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Dhammi 2014
    1. Dhammi IK, Kumar S. Medical subject headings (MeSH) terms. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 2014;48(5):443-4. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Embase Indexing Guide 2020
    1. Embase Indexing Guide 2020. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/901693/Embase-index... (accessed 1 July 2020).
Glanville 2000
    1. Glanville J, Lefebvre C. Identifying systematic reviews: key resources. ACP Journal Club 2000;132(3):A11-2. - PubMed
Glanville 2008
    1. Glanville J, Bayliss S, Booth A, Dundar Y, Fernandes H, Fleeman ND, et al. So many filters, so little time: the development of a search filter appraisal checklist. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2008;96(4):356-61. - PMC - PubMed
Golder 2009
    1. Golder S, Loke Y. Search strategies to identify information on adverse effects: a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2009;97(2):84-92. - PMC - PubMed
Haddaway 2022
    1. Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2022;18(2):e1230. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2022a
    1. Higgins JP, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Thomas J, Flemyng E, Churchill R. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. London: Cochrane, February 2022.
Higgins 2022b
    1. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Horsley 2011
    1. Horsley T, Dingwall O, Sampson M. Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 8. Art. No: MR000026. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000026.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Hunt 1997
    1. Hunt DL, McKibbon KA. Locating and appraising systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997;126(7):532-8. - PubMed
Ioannidis 2016
    1. Ioannidis JPA. Why most clinical research is not useful. PLOS Medicine 2016;13(6):e1002049. - PMC - PubMed
IOM 2011
    1. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Clinical Practice Guideline We Can Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.
Jenkins 2004
    1. Jenkins M. Evaluation of methodological search filters--a review. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2004;21(3):148-63. - PubMed
Lefebvre 2022
    1. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, Marshall C, Metzendorf M-I, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Lefebvre  2017
    1. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Beale S, Boachie C, Duffy S, Fraser C, et al. Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study. Health Technology Assessment 2017;21(60):1-148. [DOI: 10.3310/hta21690.] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Leydesdorff 2016
    1. Leydesdorff L, Comins JA, Sorensen AA, Bornmann L, Hellsten I. Cited references and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) as two different knowledge representations: clustering and mappings at the paper level. Scientometrics 2016;109(3):2077-91. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Li 2019
    1. Li L, Smith HE, Atun R, Tudor Car L. Search strategies to identify observational studies in MEDLINE and Embase. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 3. Art. No: MR000041. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000041.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Lipscomb 2000
    1. Lipscomb CE. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 2000;88(3):265-6. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Moher 2009
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine 2009;6(7):e1000097. - PMC - PubMed
Montori 2005
    1. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005;330(7482):68. - PMC - PubMed
Navarro‐Ruan 2022
    1. Navarro-Ruan T, Haynes RB. Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine's systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMed. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2022;110(1):43-6. - PMC - PubMed
NHS 1996
    1. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD guidelines for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. York: NHS CRD, 1996.
NLM 2019a
    1. NLM - MeSH. Systematic Review [Publication Type]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/2028176 (accessed 1 July 2020).
NLM 2019b
    1. National Library of Medicine. PubMed updates February 2019. National Library of Medicine Technical Bulletin 2019;(427):b6.
NLM 2019c
    1. National Library of Medicine. Support for Systematic Reviews. National Library of Medicine Technical Bulletin 2019;(427):b6.
Page 2016
    1. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLOS Medicine 2016;13(5):e1002028. - PMC - PubMed
Page 2021
    1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Rada 2020
    1. Rada G, Pérez D, Araya-Quintanilla F, Ávila C, Bravo-Soto G, Bravo-Jeria R, et al. Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2020;20(1):286. [DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01157-x] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Shojania 2001
    1. Shojania KG, Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Effective Clinical Practice 2001;4(4):157-62. [PMID: ] - PubMed
SIGN
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN: search filters. www.sign.ac.uk/search-filters.html (accessed 1 July 2020).
Sprakel 2019
    1. Sprakel J, Carrara H, Manzer BM, Fedorowicz Z. A mapping study and recommendations for a joint NGO (Think Pink) and Bahrain Government Breast Cancer project. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 2019;12(3):209-17. [DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12357] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Thomas 2021
    1. Thomas J, McDonald S, Noel-Storr A, Shemilt I, Elliott J, Mavergames C, Marshall IJ. Machine learning reduced workload with minimal risk of missing studies: development and evaluation of a randomized controlled trial classifier for Cochrane Reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2021;133:140-51. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.003] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Wilczynski 1995
    1. Wilczynski NL, Walker CJ, McKibbon KA, Haynes RB. Reasons for the loss of sensitivity and specificity of methodologic MeSH terms and textwords in MEDLINE. Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care 1995:436-40. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Wilczynski 2005
    1. Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB. An overview of the design and methods for retrieving high-quality studies for clinical care. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2005;5:20. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Wilczynski 2007
    1. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges Team. EMBASE search strategies achieved high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving methodologically sound systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007;60(1):29-33. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Wilczynski 2010
    1. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, for the QI Hedges Team. Optimal search filters for detecting quality improvement studies in Medline. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2010;19(6):e31‐5. - PubMed
Wong 2006
    1. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Comparison of top-performing search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies and systematic reviews in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(4):451-5. - PMC - PubMed
Young 2011
    1. Young T, Hopewell S. Methods for obtaining unpublished data. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11. Art. No: MR000027. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000027.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Franco 2020
    1. Franco JV, Garrote V, Vietto V, Escobar Liquitay CM, Solà I. Search strategies (filters) to identify systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 7. Art. No: MR000054. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000054] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources