Conference Agenda

To read the abstracts of submissions, click on the title of the session at the top of the cell, not on the title of the submission.  

 
 
Session Overview
Session
2.1: Oral Presentations - Information Retrieval (1)
Time:
Wednesday, 01/June/2022:
2:00pm - 3:15pm

Session Chair: Regina Küfner Lein
Location: Willem Burgerzaal


Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'
Presentations
2:00pm - 2:15pm
ID: 130 / 2.1: 1
Oral Presentation
Topics: Information retrieval and evidence syntheses

The impact of using search filters for non-randomised studies on rapid reviews

Irma Klerings, Anna Glechner, Martin Fangmeyer

Danube University Krems, Austria

Introduction

Study selection is one of the major time-consuming tasks in the evidence synthesis process because of the necessity to screen large search results. Therefore, reducing the number or records retrieved is an important way to save time when conducting rapid reviews (RRs). The recently published MEDLINE search filters by Waffenschmidt et al.1 are a promising way to reduce search results when searching for non-randomised controlled studies (cNRS). While they are less sensitive than comparable filters for randomized controlled studies, it is unclear if missed studies would affect review conclusions.
Aim

Based on RR searches that used no study type filters and included cNRS, we retrospectively examined the impact of using the cNRS-filters for Ovid MEDLINE.

We analysed:

  1. The proportion of cNRS included in the reviews that would still be found by the MEDLINE search when the Waffenschmidt filters (sensitivity or specificity focused) are applied,
  2. The reduction in study selection workload due to a smaller search result,
  3. Whether missed studies would have been retrieved by non-Boolean searches,
  4. The impact of missing studies on the conclusions of the original review.

Method

We screened RRs completed at our institution between 2018 and 2021, identifying those that included cNRS and applied no study type filters. For each eligible RR, we identified which cNRS had been found by the original MEDLINE search, and if they would still be found when the search filters were applied. We then checked the reduction of the records retrieved and calculated the potential reduction in screening time. We also checked if missed references would have been found by reference list screening and PubMed similar articles searches used in the original RR. Finally, we are currently assessing if missed studies would have changed the conclusions of the RR.
Results

These are preliminary results; the final analysis will be completed in early 2022.

21 RRs fit our inclusion criteria and included 64 cNRS. The best sensitivity filter (Fsens) retrieved all included studies in 14 reviews, compared to 8 reviews with the best specificity filter (Fspec). Fsens lead to an average reduction of 43% (21%-75%) in retrieved records, Fspec to 56% (39-84%). This represents an average reduction in screening time of 3 hours per reviewer when using Fsens and 4 hours for Fspec. Of 8 studies missed by Fsens, 5 were found by the non-Boolean searches. Fspec missed 17 studies, 10 were found by non-Boolean searches. Using Fspec would have lead to no conclusion being possible in 2 RRs.

Conclusion

Based on preliminary results, using Fsens would reduce screening time without negatively impacting RR conclusions. Additionally, non-Boolean methods were able to retrieve more than half of the studies missed by each filter.

Human Touch

Our rapid review services provide hospital personnel with timely and concise evidence syntheses. By improving our workflows, we aim to provide better support for them.

Reference: 1 Waffenschmidt, et al. Development and validation of study filters for identifying controlled non-randomized studies in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE. Res Syn Meth. 2020; 11: 617– 626.

Biography and Bibliography
Irma Klerings works as information specialist for the Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation and Cochrane Austria at Danube University Krems, Austria. She is also an information specialist for the Cochrane Public Health Group. Her main roles are developing search strategies for systematic and rapid reviews, assessing search strategies, and teaching systematic search methods. She also contributes to methods studies in the field of evidence synthesis.

Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Ellen, M., Klerings, I., Sfetcu, R., Riva, N., Mahmić-Kaknjo, M., ... & Gartlehner, G. (2021). Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 139, 287-296.
Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Klerings, I., Wagner, G., Heise, T. L., Dobrescu, A. I., Armijo-Olivo, S., ... & Gartlehner, G. (2018). Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 102, 1-11.


2:15pm - 2:30pm
ID: 223 / 2.1: 2
Oral Presentation
Topics: Information retrieval and evidence syntheses

Developing searchRxiv: An international transdisciplinary repository for search strategies

Neal Haddaway2, Melissa L. Rethlefsen1, Cristina Ashby3

1University of New Mexico Health Sciences Library & Informatics Center, United States of America; 2Stockholm Environment Institute; 3CABI

Introduction
Documenting, saving, and sharing search strategies is an important component of transparent reporting for systematic reviews. It is also helpful for individual practice, enabling valuable search “blocks” on a myriad of topics to be shared, modified, and reused. Though documentation and sharing are critical, these activities have been scattered across dozens of resources, from individual journal supplemental files to, rarely, institutional repositories. Shared search block resources that have been developed previously have never been adopted broadly; successful platforms for documentation and sharing have been local.
Aim
We sought to develop a transdisciplinary platform to share search strategies and their documentation.
Method/ Program Description
We collaborated with CABI to develop searchRxiv, a new subject agnostic platform for documenting and sharing search strategies. Initial conversations led to the development of a proposal for a standardised file type for documenting systematic searches, which outlined the key background issues shaping the platform, including the current state of poor reporting quality of search strategies, the need for librarians to receive credit for their intellectual contributions, and a lack of accessibility to search strategies as a contributor to research waste. We proposed creating a platform which would: improve accuracy of search strategy documentation, create citable records for each search strategy, and be openly available to improve accessibility. We established an Advisory Group to provide feedback on the proposal, data elements, and standards required for maximum benefit and reproducibility. 27 data elements were proposed after review by the Advisory Group.
Results/ Evaluation
Using the initial proposal, plus the data elements and standards proposed by the core group and the Advisory Group, CABI developed searchRxiv (searcharxiv.org) in mid-2021, built on CABI's existing technology infrastructure. searchRxiv enables individuals to create a DOI-stamped record of a search strategy or a search block. Fields captured include title, the search strategy, the date of the search, update dates, the review question, a description, keywords, validation information, whether the search was peer reviewed, links to publications, and database details.
Conclusion

searchRxiv remains in active development as feedback from the user community is received. Long-term, the vision for searchRxiv is to connect it to major search platforms to enable automatic uploading to searchRxiv to improve documentation.
Human Touch (Recommended)



2:30pm - 2:45pm
ID: 174 / 2.1: 3
Oral Presentation
Topics: Information retrieval and evidence syntheses

Information specialists : guardians of scientific output of their institute

Wichor Bramer

Erasmus MC, Netherlands, The

Introduction
Researchers from many institutes, both academic and non-academix perform and publish systematic reviews. Many of these institutes have a medical library that offers SR services to their researchers. Sometimes researchers seek assistance but cannot find it, or they fail to seek assistance, yet they will still pursue their review. Thus, many systematic reviews are published without assistance of a medical librarian.
Aim
Our aim is to investigate barriers to using assistance from a medical library, and to develop ideas how we can improve the percentage of SRs that are assisted by medical libraries.
Method
We surveyed corresponding authors of systematic reviews from researchers from university hospitals. We asked them whether or not they had used assistance from a search specialist. If they had not used assistance we asked further for the reasons and barriers for not asking for assistance. We surveyed medical librarians from university hospitals about the percentage of SR projects in their institute that they serve. We will investigate the barriers to serving all requests.
Results/ Evaluation
The involvement of information specialists in Systematic review varies substantially. In some organizations 100% of all searches for systematic reviews are developed by information specialists, while in other organizations almost no review is assisted by the library. The most important limiting factor for information specialists is not having enough capacity to do all searches. In many cases researchers are not aware of the option to ask an information specialist for help, or the researchers think they have enough skills to do the searches themselves. The vast majority of information specialists think it is very important that information specialists are involved in systematic reviews prior to publication.

Almost half of the responding systematic review authors have never used a librarian for their systematic reviews. Many are unaware the information specialists can assist them with searches. Many organizations do not have a medical library, or the library does not offer assistence with searches. Systematic review authors are much less convinced of the need of involving an information specialist in systematic reviews that information specilists do.
Conclusion

At our institute we assist 90% of the systematic reviews, thus improving the scientific quality of the publications. However, when we are asked to do peer review of systematic reviews we see SRs from university employees based on inferieor searches that have been developed without the assistance of a librarian. The aim of our research is to inspire medical librarians to become guardians of their organization's systematic review output either by offering peer review of researchers developed searches, or by offering librarian-mediated searches. That way each SR project should be based on a high quality search from the start of the project.

Human Touch (Recommended)

We hope to inspire the audience to reach out to their researchers and offer those working on systematic reviews their help. This will increase the overall quality of published systematic reviews and thus of the treatments that are based on them.



2:45pm - 3:00pm
ID: 161 / 2.1: 4
Oral Presentation
Topics: Information retrieval and evidence syntheses

Search Summary Table results for an evidence gap map

Alison Bethel, Naomi Shaw

University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Introduction

Search Summary Tables (SSTs) offer a simple way to provide an overview of the results of the searches in evidence syntheses. It combines the details from the PRISMA flow diagram with the search methods including sensitivity and precision calculations for each database, and overall. They can be used as evidence to inform future searching for the individual information professional and, if published with the systematic review/map, for the wider evidence syntheses community.

Previous SST have only been published for systematic reviews, this project will create a SST for an evidence gap map.

Aim

Create search summary tables (SSTs) for the different types of study: systematic review (SR), randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation from an evidence gap map on peer support interventions. This is to help understand where the evidence was found for each study type and whether supplementary search techniques found any additional relevant studies.

Method/ Program Description

The searches for the Srs were run first followed by the searches for RCTs and finally the economic evaluations. The supplementary searching was all undertaken at the same time. Once the evidence gap map had been completed, the included references for each study type was input into the SST. The EndNote libraries with all of the search results (ie before duplicates were removed) were searched to find out which search in which database picked up the reference. This was carried out for all three study types.

Results/ Evaluation

The results presented will include: what database combinations would have found all of the included references, which database searches found unique references, which supplementary search methods found included references and which searches did not pick up included references which were in the database; and why.

Any results about the differences between searching for SRs, RCTs and EEs will also be presented.

Conclusion

Completing a SST can take time but it is a great learning tool for the information professional (IP) working on the project as it encourages reflection and learning, it also encourages transparency, not just of the search methods but of the search results, and provides evidence for the decisions we make as IPs. This is the first SST produced for an evidence gap map in the subject area of health and we are expecting that it will evolve into a living map and we will continue to complete SSTs to discover whether the search patterns stay the same over time.

Human Touch (Recommended)

We think SSTs are a great way for IPs to reflect on their work and share knowledge with others

Biography and Bibliography
I have over 10 years’ experience in developing and running searches for all types of evidence syntheses including systematic reviews and maps, rapid reviews and realist reviews as well as evidence briefings. Along with my colleagues, I provide advice and training to colleagues, students and clinicians on how to search.Prior to that I worked in both Government and research libraries.


3:00pm - 3:15pm
ID: 169 / 2.1: 5
Oral Presentation
Topics: Information retrieval and evidence syntheses

Use and benefit of citation tracking techniques in evidence synthesis: a scoping review

Christian Appenzeller-Herzog1, Julian Hirt2,3,4, Thomas Nordhausen3, Hannah Ewald1

1University Medical Library, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; 2Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; 3International Graduate Academy, Institute for Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany; 4Institute of Applied Nursing Science, Department of Health, Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences (formerly FHS St.Gallen), St.Gallen, Switzerland

Introduction
Citation tracking techniques can be used as supplementary search methods in systematic reviews. They aim at collecting cited and citing references from pertinent references that are already known. Evidence-based recommendations on how and when to optimally use citation tracking are needed to guide systematic review workflows.
Aim
This scoping review maps the benefit of citation tracking in systematic literature searching for health-related topics (1).
Method/ Program Description
Methodological studies on evidence retrieval by citation tracking in health-related systematic literature searching with no restrictions on study design, language, and publication date were eligible. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, LLISFT, and LISTA. Additionally, we performed web searching via Google Scholar as well as backward and forward citation tracking of included studies using Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Experts were contacted for additional eligible studies. Two reviewers independently assessed reference eligibility. Data extraction and analysis were performed by one reviewer and double-checked by another.
Results/ Evaluation
We identified 47 eligible studies that were published between 1985 and 2021. Studies came mostly from the UK (n=17, 37%) or the US (n=15, 33%). The aims of the studies were to assess (i) benefit or effectiveness of citation tracking (e.g., number and proportion of studies included in a systematic review uniquely via citation tracking), (ii) technical applications of citation tracking (e.g., using Web of Science vs. Google Scholar), and (iii) to compare different citation tracking methods (e.g., direct vs. indirect citation tracking), or a combination thereof. Full scoping review results will be available in early 2022.
Conclusion

The preliminary results show that almost 50 studies published in the last 36 years assessed citation tracking for health-related evidence retrieval. The full results of this scoping review will inform an international online Delphi study aiming at the development of recommendations for citation tracking in systematic literature searching (1). For example, we hope to derive guidance as to when which citation tracking technique is likely to be particularly effective and how it should be conducted.

Human Touch (Recommended)

Biography and Bibliography
1. Hirt J, Nordhausen T, Appenzeller-Herzog C, Ewald H. Using citation tracking for systematic literature searching - study protocol for a scoping review of methodological studies and a Delphi study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Res 2021; 9:1386.


 
Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Privacy Statement · Conference: EAHIL 2022
Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.144
© 2001–2022 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany