Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources.
OBJECTIVE: To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. RESULTS: Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the databas...
| Главные авторы: | , |
|---|---|
| Формат: | Journal article |
| Язык: | English |
| Опубликовано: |
2005
|
| _version_ | 1826305800355708928 |
|---|---|
| author | Greenhalgh, T Peacock, R |
| author_facet | Greenhalgh, T Peacock, R |
| author_sort | Greenhalgh, T |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | OBJECTIVE: To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. RESULTS: Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by "snowballing" (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T06:38:20Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:f86c8ec8-591e-4382-95f0-f93fc11b17a6 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T06:38:20Z |
| publishDate | 2005 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:f86c8ec8-591e-4382-95f0-f93fc11b17a62022-03-27T12:50:07ZEffectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:f86c8ec8-591e-4382-95f0-f93fc11b17a6EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2005Greenhalgh, TPeacock, R OBJECTIVE: To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. RESULTS: Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by "snowballing" (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies. |
| spellingShingle | Greenhalgh, T Peacock, R Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. |
| title | Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. |
| title_full | Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. |
| title_fullStr | Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. |
| title_short | Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. |
| title_sort | effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence audit of primary sources |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT greenhalght effectivenessandefficiencyofsearchmethodsinsystematicreviewsofcomplexevidenceauditofprimarysources AT peacockr effectivenessandefficiencyofsearchmethodsinsystematicreviewsofcomplexevidenceauditofprimarysources |