Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 12
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Booth, Andrew 2016. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews, Vol. 5, Issue. 1,


    2014. Towards an integrated environmental risk assessment of multiple stressors on bees: review of research projects in Europe, knowledge gaps and recommendations. EFSA Journal, Vol. 12, Issue. 3, p. 3594.


    Rader, Tamara Mann, Mala Stansfield, Claire Cooper, Chris and Sampson, Margaret 2014. Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of common issues. Research Synthesis Methods, Vol. 5, Issue. 2, p. 98.


    Droste, Sigrid and Rixen, Stephan 2012. Informationen zu rechtlichen Aspekten von Gesundheitstechnologien: Methodenvorschlag zur systematischen und nachvollziehbaren Identifizierung. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, Vol. 106, Issue. 7, p. 509.


    Wong, Ruth Paisley, Suzy and Carroll, Christopher 2013. ASSESSING SEARCHES IN NICE SINGLE TECHNOLOGY APPRAISALS: PRACTICE AND CHECKLIST. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 29, Issue. 03, p. 315.


    Mullins, Mary M. DeLuca, Julia B. Crepaz, Nicole and Lyles, Cynthia M. 2014. Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible?. Research Synthesis Methods, Vol. 5, Issue. 2, p. 116.


    Finfgeld-Connett, Deborah and Johnson, E. Diane 2013. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 69, Issue. 1, p. 194.


    Assasi, Nazila Schwartz, Lisa Tarride, Jean-Eric Campbell, Kaitryn and Goeree, Ron 2014. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Vol. 14, Issue. 2, p. 203.


    Kreis, Julia Panteli, Dimitra and Busse, Reinhard 2014. HOW HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF UNPUBLISHED DATA. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 30, Issue. 01, p. 34.


    Assasi, Nazila Tarride, Jean-Eric O’Reilly, Daria and Schwartz, Lisa 2016. Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework. BMC Medical Ethics, Vol. 17, Issue. 1,


    Popham, Karyn Calo, William A. Carpentier, Melissa Y. Chen, Naomi E. Kamrudin, Samira A. Le, Yen-Chi L. Skala, Katherine A. Thornton, Logan R. and Mullen, Patricia Dolan 2012. Reporting Guidelines. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 43, Issue. 4, p. e31.


    van der Hoorn, Karin Plevier, Josepha Schoones, Jan W. and Langenhoff, Jessica M. 2011. Presenting search strategies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 27, Issue. 02, p. 188.


    ×
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 26, Issue 4
  • October 2010, pp. 450-457

Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment

  • Christina Niederstadt (a1) and Sigrid Droste (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462310001066
  • Published online: 13 October 2010
Abstract

Background: Information retrieval (IR) in health technology assessment (HTA) calls for transparency and reproducibility, but common practice in the documentation and presentation of this process is inadequate in fulfilling this demand.

Objectives: Our objective is to promote good IR practice by presenting the conceptualization of retrieval and transcription readable to non-information specialists, and reporting of effectively processed search strategies.

Methods: We performed a comprehensive database search (04/2010) to synthesize the current state-of-the-art. We then developed graphical and tabular presentation methods and tested their feasibility on existing research questions and defined recommendations.

Results: No generally accepted standard of reporting of IR in HTA exists. We, therefore, developed templates for presenting the retrieval conceptualization, database selection, and additional hand-searching as well as for presenting search histories of complex and lengthy search strategies. No single template fits all conceptualizations, but some can be applied to most processes. Database interface providers report queries as entered, not as they are actually processed. In PubMed®, the huge difference between entered and processed query is shown in “Details.” Quality control and evaluation of search strategies using a validated tool such as the PRESS checklist is suboptimal when only entry-query based search histories are applied.

Conclusions: Moving toward an internationally accepted IR reporting standard calls for advances in common reporting practices. Comprehensive, process-based reporting and presentation would make IR more understandable to others than information specialists and facilitate quality control.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.


8.S Golder , Y Loke , HM McIntosh . Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:440448.

11.A Liberati , DG Altman , J Tetzlaff , The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100.

13.AK Roundtree , MA Kallen , MA Lopez-Olivo , Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:128137.

14.M Sampson , J McGowan , J Tetzlaff , E Cogo , D Moher . No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:748754.

16.BJ Shea , JM Grimshaw , GA Wells , Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.

18.DF Stroup , JA Berlin , SC Morton , Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:20082012.

23.A Yoshii , DA Plaut , KA McGraw , MJ Anderson , KE Wellik . Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009;97:2129.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords: