Reproducibility of Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews Preliminary Results Jonathan Koffel, MSI Bio-Medical Library, University of Minnesota Melissa Rethlefsen, MLIS AHIP Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah

Rise of the Systematic Review Reporting Guidelines: PRISMA MOOSE Cochrane Institute of Medicine

Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 2009

“The Scopus, EBSCOhost, Ovid, and Web of Science platforms were searched.” Pediatrics Mar;129(3):548-56

Previous Research Good reporting of some search elements 2 –Database names, search terms Poor reporting of other elements 2 –Date search executed, database platform Reproducibility is heterogeneously defined, but generally low 3,4 2 Sampson et al. J Clin Epidemiol Aug;61(8): Yoshii et al. J Med Libr Assoc Jan;97(1): Golder et al. J Clin Epidemiol Mar;66(3):253-60

Purpose 1.Examine search reporting and reproducibility in systematic reviews published in high-impact medicine journals in Investigate the impact of librarian involvement and reporting guidelines on reporting/reproducibility rates

Hypotheses 1.Reporting/reproducibility rates will be higher when a librarian was involved. 2.Reporting/reproducibility rates will be higher when a guideline was mentioned or required by the journal.

Journals Included Cardiology Circ Cardiovasc Genet Circ Cardiovasc Interv Circ Heart Fail Circ Res Circulation Eur Heart J J Am Coll Cardiol JACC Cardiovasc Imaging JACC Cardiovasc Interv Nat Rev Cardiol Surgery Am J Surg Pathol Am J Transplant Ann Surg Ann Surg Oncol Arch Surg Br J Surg Endoscopy J Am Coll Surg J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Surg Obes Relat Dis Pediatrics Arch Dis Child Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry J Pediatr Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pediatr Infect Dis J Pediatrics Semin Fetal Neonatal Med

Identification of Studies PubMed search on 9/2/2013 using modified Montori strategy 5 (search*[Title/Abstract] OR meta-analysis[Publication Type] OR MEDLINE[Title/Abstract] OR EMBASE[Title/Abstract] OR Meta- analysis[Title/Abstract] OR (systematic[Title/Abstract] AND review[Title/Abstract]) AND (("2012/01/01"[PDat] : "2012/12/31"[PDat]) PubMed SR subset filter also used for comparison –<4% of included articles found only by Montori strategy 5 Montori et al. BMJ Jan 8;330(7482):68.

Identification of Studies All retrieved studies screened by both authors to identify systematic reviews –Searches at least one published literature database –Inclusion/exclusion criteria are prespecified –Does not limit to a certain number of journals or subset of journals Disagreements resolved by review of original articles and consensus

CardiologySurgeryPediatrics Retrieved Included 270

Items Identified Items covered: 1.Search elements (eg., terms, strategy, limits) 2.Librarian involvement (author and role) 3.Guideline mentioned

Data Extraction Data extraction form created in Qualtrics Included articles split between authors Initial entry completed in March, 2014

Analyses SPSS used for all analyses –Logistic regression (odd ratio) –Chi Square/Fisher (p-value) –Mann-Whitney/T-Test (means) –α =.01

No significant differences based on discipline

* * * * * * p<.01 for comparison Sampson et al. J Clin Epidemiol Aug;61(8):

Librarian Involvement P<.001P<.01 P<.001

Conservative Reproducibility Includes full search strategy for at least one database –Database searched –Provider –Date range –Search date –Terms –Booleans –Indication of limits

Liberal Reproducibility Includes core search elements –Database –Date range –Specific terms –Indication of limits

Reproducibility Rates Reproducibility rates <8% in prior studies –Previous criteria mirrored conservative criteria ConservativeLiberal Surgery11%56% Pediatrics12%57% Cardiology12%39% Total11%53%

LibrarianGuidelineJournal Database Namedns Databases SearchedMD 1.34 ( )***ns Provider Namedns Search Years Indicatedns Search Datens Search Updatedns Search TermsOR.2 ( )***ns Full Strategy Presentedns Booleanns Limitsns Conservative Reproducibility ns Liberal Reproducibilityns **p<.01 ***p<.001 Discipline included in regression

Librarian Author/NoneLibrarian Text/None Database Namedns Databases SearchedMD 2.8 ( )***MD 1.3 (.7-2.0)*** Provider Namedn/ans Search Years Indicatedns Search Datens Search UpdatedOR.08 ( )**ns Search TermsOR.16 ( )**OR.18 ( )*** Full Strategy Presentedns Booleanns Limitsns Conservative Reproducibility ns Liberal Reproducibilityns **p<.01 ***p<.001 Discipline, Journal Requirements and Guideline Mentioned included in regression

Results Reproducibility is not predicted by: –Librarian involvement –Journal requirements –Guidelines mentioned in the paper

Results Librarian Involvement –Increases number of databases searched –Decreases updating of search results when librarian is an author –Decreases reporting of search terms

Limitations Published information –Librarian could be involved, but not mentioned Ambiguous search elements –Booleans? Limits? Full strategy? Limited to three medical disciplines and a single year

Next Steps Duplicate entry of data Examination of reporting in greater depth –Publication lag –Presentation of elements for more than one database

Conclusions 1.Librarian involvement does not intrinsically mean better reporting 2.We must work with authors and publishers to improve reporting

Thank You Questions? Jonathan Koffel