Article type
Abstract
Background
This is an ongoing study within a review. The results will be available by September 2024. Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) often involve a purposive, iterative search approach over multiple iterations to capture a diversity of viewpoints and contexts reported in different formats and documents. This differs to comprehensive searches for effectiveness reviews. However, the evidence base for this approach is limited.
Objectives
To compare the search sensitivity, resources, and characteristics of included studies between a purposive, iterative, and conventional comprehensive systematic search approach in a QES.
Methods
We conducted a methods study within a Cochrane QES on stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences on influencing factors on the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks. We performed 2 search approaches. The iterative search consisted of 2 rounds of searching and literature selection. After the second round, it was determined that no further searching would be necessary. The conventional search was conducted across 7 electronic databases.
For the iterative search, we analyzed which information sources retrieved the included studies, documented the time needed for screening the database search results, and extrapolated it to the other search results.
For the conventional search, we will apply the artificial intelligence “Priority Screening” tool in EPPI Reviewer to screen the results. We will extract the main characteristics of additional studies that meet our inclusion criteria and assess if they would have added relevant information to the evidence base of the QES.
Preliminary Results
Iterative searching retrieved a total of 7067 records via MEDLINE, CINAHL, forward and backward citation searching, and related articles. The conventional search retrieved 17,224 references (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, BASE).
Of the 146 included records identified during the iterative search, 140 were identified by database searching and 6 by citation searches. Reviewers spent 6798 minutes to dually screen the 6631 abstracts and full texts of the iterative database search.
Relevance and Importance to Patients
QES aim to capture a diversity of viewpoints from different stakeholders, often patients. In this context, it is important to determine the most appropriate way to identify these viewpoints in a systematic search.
This is an ongoing study within a review. The results will be available by September 2024. Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) often involve a purposive, iterative search approach over multiple iterations to capture a diversity of viewpoints and contexts reported in different formats and documents. This differs to comprehensive searches for effectiveness reviews. However, the evidence base for this approach is limited.
Objectives
To compare the search sensitivity, resources, and characteristics of included studies between a purposive, iterative, and conventional comprehensive systematic search approach in a QES.
Methods
We conducted a methods study within a Cochrane QES on stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences on influencing factors on the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks. We performed 2 search approaches. The iterative search consisted of 2 rounds of searching and literature selection. After the second round, it was determined that no further searching would be necessary. The conventional search was conducted across 7 electronic databases.
For the iterative search, we analyzed which information sources retrieved the included studies, documented the time needed for screening the database search results, and extrapolated it to the other search results.
For the conventional search, we will apply the artificial intelligence “Priority Screening” tool in EPPI Reviewer to screen the results. We will extract the main characteristics of additional studies that meet our inclusion criteria and assess if they would have added relevant information to the evidence base of the QES.
Preliminary Results
Iterative searching retrieved a total of 7067 records via MEDLINE, CINAHL, forward and backward citation searching, and related articles. The conventional search retrieved 17,224 references (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, BASE).
Of the 146 included records identified during the iterative search, 140 were identified by database searching and 6 by citation searches. Reviewers spent 6798 minutes to dually screen the 6631 abstracts and full texts of the iterative database search.
Relevance and Importance to Patients
QES aim to capture a diversity of viewpoints from different stakeholders, often patients. In this context, it is important to determine the most appropriate way to identify these viewpoints in a systematic search.