Finding the best available evidence: how can we know?
Loading...
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
The importance (in all scientific fields) of finding and using evidence is growing rapidly, with increased recognition that decisions should be based on sound evidence. Key to finding this evidence is effective searching. Alongside this imperative, the searching context is becoming more complex. The number of articles indexed is enormous and increasing. In the medical field, PubMed contains over 24 million citations with over 1 million entered in 2014. Effective searching requires an understanding of database mechanisms and the terminology (including associated thesauri) of each subject. Searchers need an understanding of the requirements of the end user: what is considered relevant and what are the levels of evidence?
We suggest that a scientific approach be taken to the searching process, to ensure that the best available evidence is found, and that search methodology is tested and validated. What methods can we employ to indicate what we might have missed in our search? Search results should be tested and results fed back into the search, to improve searching effectiveness and thereby outcomes for the end user.
Search filters are validated search strategies, created using known methodology, for a given bibliographic database. The relevant terminology and database mechanisms are built into a strategy that is created from, and tested against, subsets of a gold standard set of references. Results are screened by external reviewers with expert subject knowledge, to minimise bias. The search filter performance is rated for precision and sensitivity, to provide known effectiveness in a standard set that can be extrapolated to open search. Details of the methodology and the filter performance are published for transparency.
CareSearch and Flinders Filters have developed a number of subject-based search filters. This paper discusses the importance of evidence-based searching; how these search filters are developed and lessons for general searching in scientific literature.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Betrán, A.P., Say, L., Gülmezoglu, A.M., Allen, T. and Hampson, L. 2005. Effectiveness different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5:6-6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC548692/ [Accessed May 8, 2015].
Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR). 2000-2014. KT Clearinghouse: The Knowledge-to-Action Cycle. Available from http://ktclearinghouse.ca/knowledgebase/knowledgetoaction [Accessed May 8, 2015].
CareSearch. 2015. CareSearch Peer Reviewed Journal Articles. Available from http://www.caresearch.com.au/caresearch/tabid/431/Default.aspx [Accessed May 15, 2015].
Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S, eds. 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; updated March 2011. Available at http://handbook.cochrane.org/ [Accessed May 8, 2015].
Kitchenham, B. 2007. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software
Engineering, Version 2.3, EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01. Keele University and University of Durham. Available from https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~norsaremah/2007%20Guidelines%20for%20performing%20SLR%20in%20SE%20v2.3.pdf. [Accessed May 8, 2015].
Mcgowan, J. and Sampson, M. 2005. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 93, 1: 74-80. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545125/ [Accessed May 8, 2015].
Michaleff, Z. A., Costa, L.O.P., Moseley, A.M., Maher, C.G., Elkins, M.R., Herbert, R.D. and Sherrington, C. 2011. CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE Are the Most Comprehensive Databases Indexing Randomized Controlled Trials of Physical Therapy Interventions. Physical Therapy. 91 (2): 190-197.
National Health and Medical Research Council. 2009. NHMRC Levels of Evidence and Grades for Recommendations for Developers of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Available at: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc_levels_grades_evidence_120423.pdf. [Accessed May 8, 2015].
Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., Carroll, C., Booth, A. and Wong, R. 2010. Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 27(2):114-22.
Rollin, L., Darmoni, S., Caillard, J-F. and Gehanno, J-F. 2010. Searching for high-quality articles about intervention studies in occupational health-what is really missed when using only the Medline database? Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.: 484-487.
Sackett, D., Rosenberg, W., Gray, M., Haynes, B. and Richardson, S. 1996. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ, 312, 13 January. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/312/7023/71. [Accessed May 8, 2015]. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
Ton, G., de Grip, K., Klerkx, L., Rau, M-L., Douma, M., Friis-Hansen, E., Triomphe, B., WatersBayer, A. and Wongtschowski, M. (2013) Effectiveness of innovation grants to smallholder agricultural producers: an explorative systematic review. EPPI-Centre, Social
Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4soRhylhV4A%3d&tabid=3401 [Accessed May 8, 2015].
Woodcock, P., Pullin, A.S. and Kaiser, M.J. 2014. Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: A methodology. Biological Conservation. 176(0):54-62.