Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:57:17.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biomedical literature search protocols: Consensus statement from the documentation units of the Spanish health technology assessment agencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2008

Itziar Guemes-Careaga  and
Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea
Itziar Guemes-Careaga
Affiliation:
Osteba-Basque Office for HTA
Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea
Affiliation:
Osteba-Basque Office for HTA and Nursing University School Vitoria-Gasteiz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of this study were, first, to define the main advantages and disadvantages of using bibliographic search protocols; second, to define a series of criteria that could aid in prioritizing the information resources to be consulted for each research project; and third, to rank these criteria.

Methods: First, a survey was e-mailed to the Spanish Health Technology Assessment Agencies (AUnETS) group, with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of using bibliographic search protocols. Second, a consensus group meeting with the information specialists of the AUnETS group was organized, where SWOT analysis technique (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) was used, also to discuss the utility of using search protocols. Third, the same group designed a final prioritization criteria questionnaire intended for Health Technology Assessment International's Information Resources Group (HTAi IRG), based on a draft version written by the information specialist from the Basque Office for HTA. Finally, this questionnaire was e-mailed to the HTAi IRG experts, and their responses were analyzed.

Results: Some of the advantages defined were systematization of the searches and transparency and repeatability of the process. The perceived disadvantages were inflexibility to be adapted to some situations, inability to establish time frameworks and the difficulty of incorporating experts’ opinions into closed protocols. Five areas of prioritization criteria were defined: study topic; characteristics of the database and other information resources; database interface; characteristics of the organization; kind of research output for which the information is intended. A ranked list of prioritization criteria was established based on the responses of the HTAi IRG group.

Conclusions: The information specialists consulted agreed that search protocols are useful tools for guiding systematic searches. The twenty-one prioritization criteria defined will be used by the information specialists for determining, which databases to consult.

Keywords

DocumentationConsensusDatabasesBibliographic search
Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 104 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Bartkowiak, BA. Searching for evidence based medicine in the literature. II. Resources. Clin Med Res. 2005;1:39–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bartlett, C, Stern, JA, Peters, T, Egger, M. How important is the “grey literature”? A study of publication bias in meta-analysis of controlled trials. In: Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Bristol; 2000:203.Google Scholar
3. Bidwell, S, Fabricious Jensen, M. E-text on health technology assessment (HTA) information resources. Chapter 3: Using a search protocol to identify sources of information: The COSI model. National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR); 2006. Available at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/archive/20060905/nichsr/ehta/chapter3.html. Accessed April 19, 2007.Google Scholar
4. Booth, A. Following the evidence trial: EBCH on the Internet. Health Information on the Internet. 1998;1:4–5.Google Scholar
5. Booth, A. Seeking the evidence: A protocol. School of Health & Related Research. University of Sheffield; 2006. Available at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~scharr/ir/proto.html. Accessed April 19, 2007.Google Scholar
6. Canadian Health Network. How to find the most trustworthy health information on the Internet. Agence de santé publique du Canada; 2006. Available at: http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1042668266229&pagename=CHN-RCS/Page/ShellStaticContentPageTemplate&c=Page&lang=En. Accessed April 19, 2007.Google Scholar
7. Egger, M, Juni, P, Bartlett, C, Sterne, J. Do we need comprehensive literature searches? A study of publication and language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials. 8th International Cochrane Colloquium. Cape Town, South Africa; October 25-29 2000.Google Scholar
8. Egües-Olazabal, N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, Arcelay-Salazar, A. Development of a Core-Standard-Ideal (COSI) searching protocol in the Spanish Health Technology Assessment Context. 2nd Annual HTAi Meeting, Rome; June 18-22, 2005.Google Scholar
9. Grandage, K, Slawson, D, Shaughnessy, AF. When less is more: A practical approach to searching for evidence-based answers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90:298–304.Google Scholar
10. Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, Egües-Olazabal, N. Protocolos de búsqueda bibliográfica. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Gobierno Vasco. Departamento de Sanidad; 2005. Report No.: Osteba D-05-02.Google Scholar
11. Helmer, D, Savoie, I. Do extended searches fill the bill? Evaluating the quality of the literature retrieved. 17th Annual meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Philadelphia; June 3-6, 2001.Google Scholar
12. Helmer, D, Savoie, I, Green, C. How do various fugitive literature searching methods impact the comprehensiveness of literature uncovered for systematic review? 4th International Conference on Grey Literature. Washington; October 4-5, 1999.Google Scholar
13. Mejuto Martí, T. Protocolo de búsqueda bibliográfica dependiendo del tiempo de respuesta de la información solicitada. Xunta de Galicia. Consellería de Sanidade. Dirección Xeral de Aseguramiento e Planificación Sanitaria; 2006.Google Scholar
14. Parada, A. Internet y los informes de las agencias de evaluación de tecnologías médicas. Gac Sanit. 2001;15:359–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Romero, Tabares A, Reyes, Alcázar V, Osuna, Cabezas MD, Pírez, Diaz MJ, Gozalbes, Boja MA. El procedimiento de AETSA para documentar y difundir informes de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias. Nets. 2004;9:3–16.Google Scholar
16. Steinbrook, R. Searching for the right search-Reaching the medical literature. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:4–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Wanke, M, Juzwishin, D, Thonley, R, Chan, L. An exploratory review of evaluations of health technology assessment agencies. HTA Initiative #16. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; 2006.Google Scholar