Investigating the Status and Errors of Search Strategy in Persian Medical Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Ghasemian, Mahsa; Saberi, Mohammad Karim; Amiri, Mohammad Reza

doi:10.22034/ijism.2024.2028948.1483

Investigating the Status and Errors of Search Strategy in Persian Medical Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mahsa Ghasemian ¹

Mohammad Karim Saberi ²

Mohammad Reza Amiri ³

¹ Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Paramedicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

² Department of Nursing, Shirvan, Faculty of Nursing, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnord, Iran

³ Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Paramedicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22034/ijism.2024.2028948.1483

Abstract

Search strategy is one of the main criteria for quality assessment of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. This descriptive-analytical research aims to investigate the status and errors of search strategy in Persian medical meta-analyses and systematic reviews indexed in The Scientific Information Database (SID) until February 2023. A total of 421 articles were identified. A checklist containing 31 items was used to collect the data. It is established based on a similar study and getting experts' opinions to check the status of search strategy reporting in articles and collaboration of librarians. Using SPSS version 25, descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data. The results showed that 15.9% of articles reported the systematic search strategy; 97.1% of the reviewed articles did not mention the collaboration of librarians in formulating the search strategies. 17.3% of articles had complete comprehensiveness regarding the number of databases used. The most common errors in PubMed and Scopus were “Not using controlled keywords,” but in the Web of Science database, it was “Not using all the concepts and keywords related to the subject”. The final result is that in most Persian medical meta-analyses and systematic reviews, the search strategy does not have a proper status in terms of reporting in the article and errors, which can influence the recall and reduce the quality of this type of article. Not having enough skills in how to search effectively and not using librarians in searching can be the cause of this situation.

Keywords

Systematic Review

Meta-Analysis

Search Strategy

Search Errors

Medicine

Persian Documents

20.1001.1.20088302.2025.23.1.8.2

Subjects

Library and Information Science

Aagaard, T., Lund, H. & Juhl, C. (2016). Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews - are MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL enough to identify effect studies within musculoskeletal disorders? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), 161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0264-6

Abdulla, A. & Krishnamurthy, M. (2016). Comparing retrieval of systematic review searches in health sciences areas using two major databases. Reference Reviews, 30(8), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1108/RR-03-2016-0082

Dalili Saleh, M. & Ziaee, S. (2016). The role of librarians and Librarianship in the meta-analysis and meta-analysis studies. Information Systems & Services, 5(19-20), 55-67. [in Persian]

Dao, B. T. T. & Ta, T. D. N. (2020). A meta-analysis: capital structure and firm performance. Journal of Economics and Development, 22(1), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1108/JED-12-2019-0072

Eskrootchi, R., Mohammadi, A. S., Panahi, S. & Zahedi, R. (2020). Librarians' participation in the systematic reviews published by Iranian researchers and its impact on the quality of reporting search strategy. Evidence-Based Library And Information Practice, 15(2), 70-85. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29609

Ghafoori, F., Taheri, M., Mardi, A., Sarafraz, N. & Negarandeh, R. (2015). Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in the Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery. Journal of Hayat, 21(3), 41-49. Retrieved from https://hayat.tums.ac.ir/article-1-1194-en.pdf

Gopalakrishnan, S. & Ganeshkumar, P. (2013). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 2(1), 9-14. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934

Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia, 14(Suppl 1), 29-37. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3049418/

Koffel, J. B. (2015). Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One, 10(5), e0125931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931

Malboosbaf, R. & Azizi, F. (2010). What is a systematic review, and how we should write it? Research in Medicine, 34(3):203-207. [in Persian]

Martín-Rodero, H., Sanz-Valero, J. & Galindo-Villardón, P. (2018). The methodological quality of systematic reviews indexed in the MEDLINE database. The Electronic Library, 36(1), 146-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2017-0002

Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A. C., Sampson, M. & Altman, D. G. (2007). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med, 4(3), e78. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.004007

Osareh, F., Tavakolizadeh-Ravari, M., Bigdeli, Z., & Ghazavi, R. (2018). Study of similarities of terms in title, author's keywords, and controlled vocabulary for determining the appropriate field in scientometric thematic analysis. Health Information Management, 15(5), 220-225.

Puljak L. (2017). If only one author or only one database was searched, a study should not be called a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91, 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.002

Rethlefsen, M. L., Farrell, A. M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L. C. & Brigham, T. J. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(6), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025

Salvador-Oliván, J. A., Marco-Cuenca, G., & Arquero-Avilés, R. (2019). Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 107(2), 210-221. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.567

Sampson, M. & McGowan, J. (2006). Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(10), 1057–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.007

Seo, H.-J. & Kim, K. U. (2012). Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 129. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-129

Sequeira-Byron, P., Fedorowicz, Z., Jagannath, V. A. & Sharif, M. O. (2011). An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS). Journal of Applied Oral Science: Revista FOB, 19(5), 440–447. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572011000500002

Spencer, A. J. & Eldredge, J. D. (2018). Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: A scoping review. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 106(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82

Townsend, W. A., Anderson, P. F., Ginier, E. C., MacEachern, M. P., Saylor, K. M., Shipman, B. L. & Smith, J. E. (2017). A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 105(3), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.189