Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • Peer review of searches for studies for health technology assessments, systematic reviews, and other evidence syntheses

  • Part of
  • Carol Lefebvre, Steven Duffy
  • Journal:
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 37 / Issue 1 / 2021
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    24 May 2021, e64
  • Introduction

    Peer review of searches is a process whereby both the search strategies and the search process description are reviewed, ideally using an evidence-based checklist.

    Rationale

    As the search strategy underpins any well-conducted evidence synthesis, its quality could affect the final result. Evidence shows, however, that search strategies are prone to error.

    Findings

    There is increasing awareness and use of the PRESS Evidence-Based Checklist and peer review of search strategies, at the outset of evidence syntheses, prior to the searches being run, and this is now recommended by a number of evidence synthesis organizations.

    Recommendations and conclusions

    Searches for evidence syntheses should be peer reviewed by a suitably qualified and experienced librarian or information specialist after being designed, ideally, by another suitably qualified and experienced librarian or information specialist. Peer review of searches should take place at two important stages in the evidence synthesis process; at the outset of the project prior to the searches being run and at the prepublication stage. There is little empirical evidence, however, to support the effectiveness of peer review of searches. Further research is required to assess this. Those wishing to stay up to date with the latest developments in information retrieval, including peer review of searches, should consult the SuRe Info resource (http://www.sure-info.org), which seeks to help information specialists and others by providing easy access to the findings from current information retrieval methods research and thus support more research-based information retrieval practice.

  • Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases: Value, content, and developments

  • Alison M. Booth, Kath E. Wright, Helen Outhwaite
  • Journal:
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 26 / Issue 4 / October 2010
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    06 October 2010, pp. 470-472

  • Background: The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) funded through the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research undertakes systematic reviews evaluating the research evidence on health and public health questions of national and international importance. CRD is involved in methods research and produces internationally accepted guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews. A core product of the Centre are the CRD databases; a key resource for health professionals, policy makers, and researchers around the world. Research evidence evaluating the effects and cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions is growing year on year, and can be difficult and time consuming to identify and appraise. The databases assist decision makers by systematically identifying and critically describing systematic reviews and economic evaluations, appraising their quality and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses; and providing a comprehensive listing of ongoing and published health technology assessments.

    Methods and Results: This article briefly outlines the processes behind each of the three databases, gives details of the records, the information they contain and the value added by CRD. An overview of the new public interface for the CRD databases to be launched later this year is given. Improvements and innovations to supplement existing functions are listed, including enhanced and new search options, the addition of quick links to relevant material from within individual records, an integrated PubMed search and the ability to select personal preferences.

    Conclusions: CRD's databases provide free access to an important knowledge base and are used widely to underpin evidence informed healthcare decisions in the United Kingdom and internationally.