1. Quality and reporting of literature search strategies
in systematic reviews published by London School
of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine affiliated authors:
an assessment using PRISMA, AMSTAR and PRESS
criteria
Jane Falconer
User Support Services Librarian

2. Question
Yes No
N/A
Electronic search strategy is described for at least one database
59.8%
40.2% 0%
Synonyms are used?
47.5%
48.4%
4.1%
A controlled vocabulary is used?
30.3%
66.4%
3.3%
Terms are truncated?
10.7%
84.4%
4.9%
The search syntax is adapted to each database?
13.1%
68.9%
18.0%

4. Methodology Random Sample Analysis Literature Search
Web of Science Core Content
Organisation = LSHTM
Title contains “systematic review”
Year = 2015 or 2016
n = 44
58 item data extraction form with criteria from
PRISMA
AMSTAR
PRESS

5. PRISMA reporting characteristics
Names of databases unambiguously stated
Supplier of databases unambiguously stated
Start/end dates clearly stated to at least mm/yy accuracy
Fully repeatable search for one database
Fully repeatable search for all databases
Language not limited, or rationale for limit provided
50%

6. AMSTAR appraisal criteria
Were both keywords and thesaurus terms provided?

7. PRESS quality criteria – basic skills

8. PRESS quality criteria – subject headings
Are the subject headings relevant?
Are all relevant subject headings included, including previous terms?
Are subject headings chosen at correct level? Not too broad/too narrow?
Are subject headings exploded where necessary?
Are both subject headings and terms in free text used for each concept?
n = 33

9. 45% 25% 7% Overall quality score No search strategy was published
Showed serious flaws
No search strategy was published
Major problems leading to lack of confidence in study validity
25%
Could not be assessed due to lack of information
Minor problems unlikely to impact study validity 7%
Good quality search, clearly reported
No problems with reporting or search quality

13. Image in the public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

14. References
Gómez-Sánchez, A. F., et al. (2016). Evaluating the information retrieval quality and methodological accuracy of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on congenital malformations ( ). Paper presented at the 15th EAHIL Conference, Seville, Spain.
CWTS (Centre for Science and Technology Studies) (2017) CWTS Leiden Ranking [website] . Leiden University, Netherlands.
THE (2014) REF 2014 results: table of excellence. [website]
Page, M. J., et al. (2016). Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med, 13(5), e doi: /journal.pmed
Sampson, M., & McGowan, J. (2006). Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. J Clin Epidemiol, 59(10), doi: /j.jclinepi
Bullers, K., et al. (2018). It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. J Med Libr Assoc, 106(2),
Page, M. J., & Moher, D. (2017). Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 263. doi: /s
Mead, T. L., & Richards, D. T. (1995). Librarian participation in meta-analysis projects. Bull Med Libr Assoc, 83(4),
Rethlefsen, M. L., et al. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 68(6),
All photographs from Pexels ( unless otherwise noted and distributed under a CC0 license.

15. Jane Falconer jane.falconer@lshtm.ac.uk @falkie71
ORCID: