Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Stop searching and you will find it: Search-Resistant Concepts in systematic review searches
  1. Farhad Shokraneh1,2,3,4,5
  1. 1Centre for Academic Primary Care (CAPC), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  2. 2Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  3. 3Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), Oxford, UK
  4. 4Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK
  5. 5Department of Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Review Consultants LTD, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Farhad Shokraneh; farhad.shokraneh{at}ndm.ox.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

  • Search strategies do not necessarily include all the concepts from the review questions, and some are left out of the search strategies.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

  • This paper suggests the new term search-resistant concepts for concepts that are not searchable because of human’s lack of knowledge regarding the concept, poor reporting of the concept and lack of standard terminology for the concept. It suggests five solutions for dealing with such concepts.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

  • The suggestions in this paper help researchers choose the right concepts for searching and apply one of the five suggested solutions when facing search-resistant concepts.

Introduction

Most evidence synthesis projects involving systematic reviewing need a written protocol containing a detailed or brief description of the main review question and its concepts.1 To formulate an answerable question, it is recommended that reviewers follow one of the established frameworks2 that guides them through a better definition and understanding of the review question. The most used framework is known as the PICOS acronym, which stands for its components or concepts: patient, problem or population (P), intervention or index test (I), control or comparison (C), outcome (O) and study design (S). This framework has some limitations,3 and since one size does not fit all and depends on the type of review, study designs and specific needs, many other frameworks and their acronyms have been developed.2 4 While such frameworks help structure the review question, protocol and final report, they are often not followed in the search step of the systematic review.

Designing the search methods usually requires a framework-based protocol, and writing the search methods is usually the last part of protocol development for the reviews because the search strategies are a translation of review questions into the syntax that information retrieval (search) systems could read and run. The main deviation in search design …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @FarhadShokrane

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.