Databases and other sources of information in systematic reviews
practical recommendations
Keywords:
systematic review, information sources, database, information retrievalAbstract
Bibliographic databases are the main source of information for identifying and retrieving primary studies to be synthesized in systematic reviews (SR). Based on the analysis of the information sources used in 305 SR in Psychology, the aim of this article is to explain how the information sources have been reported in SR in Psychology and to present practical solutions for the identified gaps and inconsistencies. The article presents a classification of bibliographic academic information sources, defines a bibliographic database and demonstrates how to correctly name information sources in SR. It also discusses the number of bases in SR, the construction of search strategies, the use of controlled vocabulary and the explosion in databases. Finally, the article discusses the issue of gray literature, the use of complementary sources, the issue of the regionality of information sources and the role of the librarian in the SR. It is hoped that the issues discussed and the practical recommendations in this article will contribute to the improvement of the SR carried out by researchers in all areas of knowledge.
Downloads
References
BRAMER, Wichor M. et al. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews, v. 6, n. 1, p. 1-12, Dec. 2017. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y.
BETRÁN, Ana P. et al. Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality. BMC Medical Research Methodology, v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-5, 28 Jan. 2005. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-6.
BOEKER, Martin; VACH, Werner; MOTSCHALL, Edith. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Medical Research Methodology, v. 13, n. 1, p. 1-12, 26 out. 2013. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-131.
BORREGO, Maura; FOSTER, Margaret J.; FROYD, Jeffrey E. What is the State of theArt of Systematic Review in Engineering Education? Journal Of Engineering Education, [v. 104, n. 2, p. 212-242, abr. 2015. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20069.
CENTRE FOR REVIEWS AND DISSEMINATION. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York, England: University of York, 2009.
CHATTERJEE, Amitabha. Elements of Information Organization and Dissemination. Cambrige: Chandos Publishing, 2017.
GRAINGER, Rebecca et al. Issues in reporting of systematic review methods in health app-focused reviews: a scoping review. Health Informatics Journal, v. 26, n. 4, p. 2930-2945, Sep. 2020. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1460458220952917.
GUINCHAT, Claire; MENOU, Michel. Introdução geral as ciências e técnicas da informação e documentação. Tradução Míriam Vieira da Cunha. 2. ed. Brasília, DF: IBICT, 1994.
HANSEN, Henrik; TRIFKOVIC, Neda. Systematic Reviews: Questions, Methods and Usage. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry Of Foreign Affairs Of Denmark, 2013.
HIGGINS, Julian Pt; GREEN, Sally (ed.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0: updated March 2011. London, UK: The Cochrane Colaboration, 2011.
HIGGINS, Julian P.T.; Lasserson T; CHANDLER, Jackie; Tovey D; THOMAS, James; Flemyng E, Churchill R. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. London, UK: Cochrane, 2021.
HIGGINS, Julian P.T.; THOMAS, James; CHANDLER, Jackie; Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (ed.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions versão 6.3 (Last updated: 4 August, 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Disponível em: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Aceso em: 30 jan. 2023.
HOPEWELL, Sally et al. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, p. 1-15, Apr. 2007. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.mr000010.pub3.
KATCHAMART, Wanruchada et al. PubMed had a higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE in the search for systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v. 64, n. 7, p. 805-807, July 2011. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.06.004.
LAZARINIS, Fotis. Cataloguing and Classification: an introduction to AACR2, RDA, DDC, LCC, LCSH and MARC 21 standards. Cambrige: Chandos Publishing, 2014.
MACFARLANE, Andrew; RUSSELL-ROSE, Tony; SHOKRANEH, Farhad. Search strategy formulation for systematic reviews: issues, challenges and opportunities. Intelligent Systems With Applications, v. 15, p. 1-10, Sep. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2022.200091
MCGOWAN, Jessie et al. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v. 75, p. 40-46, July. 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021.
MELNIK, Tamara; SOUZA, Wanderson Fernandes de; CARVALHO, Marcele Regine de. A importância da prática da psicologia baseada em evidências: aspectos conceituais, níveis de evidência, mitos e resistências. Revista Costarricense de Psicología, San José, Costa Rica, v. 33, n. 2, p. 79-92, jul./dez. 2014.
MOHER, David et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, v. 4, n. 1, p. 1-9, Jan. 2015. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
MURAD, M Hassan et al. New evidence pyramid. Evidence Based Medicine, v. 21, n. 4, p. 125-127, June 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401.
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): how are they different? 2020. Disponível em: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/difference.html. Acesso em: 30 jan. 2023.
NEWMAN, Mark; GOUGH, David. Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: methodology, perspectives and application. In: ZAWACKI-RICHTER, Olaf et al (ed.). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: methodology, perspectives and application. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020. p. 3-22.
OUZZANI, Mourad; HAMMADY, Hossam; FEDOROWICZ, Zbys; ELMAGARMID, Ahmed. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-10, Dec. 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.
PAEZ, Arsenio. Gray literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, v. 10, n. 3, p. 233-240, Aug. 2017. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12266.
PATOLE, Sanjay. Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and Evidence-Based Medicine. In: PATOLE, Sanjay (ed.). Principles and Practice of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2021. p. 1-10.
PARK, Ho Young et al. Quality Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to PRISMA 2020 Guidelines: results from recently published papers in the Korean Journal of Radiology. Korean Journal of Radiology, v. 23, n. 3, p. 355-369, 2022. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2021.0808.
PAGE, Matthew J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, v. 372, p. 1-9, Mar. 2021. BMJ. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
PURSSELL, Edward; MCCRAE, Niall. How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review: a guide for healthcare researchers, practitioners and students. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020.
RAMASAMY, Akilesh. PRISMA 2020: key changes and implementation aspects. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 80, n. 5, p. 795-797, May 2022. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2021.12.018.
SALVADOR-OLIVÁN, José Antonio; MARCO-CUENCA, Gonzalo; ARQUERO-AVILÉS, Rosario. Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. Journal of The Medical Library Association, v. 107, n. 2, p. 210-221, Apr. 2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.567.
SIDDAWAY, Andy P.; WOOD, Alex M.; HEDGES, Larry V. How to do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, v. 70, n. 1, p.747-770, Jan. 2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803.
THE CAMPBELL COLLABORATION. Campbell Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines. Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration, 2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4073/cpg.2016.1.
WOODS, Stephen; PHILLIPS, Kathleen; DUDASH, Andrew. Grey literature citations in top nursing journals: a bibliometric study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, v. 108, n. 2, p. 262-269, Apr. 2020. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.760.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Wánderson Cássio Oliveira Araújo, Fernanda Machado Lopes, Natália Martins Dias, Andréa Barbará da Silva Bousfield, Mariana Luíza Becker da Silva, Andrea Valéria Steil
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
a. Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Creative Commons Attribution License que permitindo o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria do trabalho e publicação inicial nesta revista.
b. Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
c. Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) a qualquer ponto antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado.