A New Framework for The Assessment of Comprehensive Literature Search: The PRESS 2015 Guideline

Öz

Systematic reviews are accepted as the most reliable references which synthesize the best evidence among the existed evidences, especially in health care. Comprehensive literature search is one of the significant stages of systematic review process. However, adapting search strategy to the various electronic databases is a tough and time-consuming process. Peer review is known as a current approach to shorten this process and increase the quality of evidence. Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) Guidance is an important tool which is used for this purpose. PRESS Guidance was developed to
assess electronic search strategies used in the literature searches for systematic reviews and Health Technologies Assessment reports in 2008 and updated in 2010 and 2015. PRESS 2015 Guidance is constituted of four sections; i) recommendations for librarian practice, ii) an evidence-based checklist, iii) an assessment form and iv) implementation strategies. In this review, it was aimed to translate the PRESS 2015 Guidance into Turkish and widen its usage. Since the popularity of systematic review methodology has increased especially in healthcare both in the world and in our country, the PRESS 2015 Guidance is recommended to be used actively by researchers to construction and adaptation of the search strategy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• evidence-based practice
• guideline
• peer review
• research

Kapsamlı Literatür Taramasının Değerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Çerçeve: PRESS 2015 Rehberi

Öz

Sistematik derlemeler, sağlık hizmetlerinde mevcut kanıtların sentezlenerek en iyi kanıtın elde edilmesinde en güvenilir referans olarak kabul edilmektedir. Kapsamlı literatür taraması, sistematik derleme sürecinin önemli aşamalarından biridir. Bununla birlikte, tarama stratejisinin oluşturulması ve çeşitli veri tabanlarına uyarlanması zorlu ve zaman alıcı bir süreçtir. Akran değerlendirmesi bu süreci kısaltan ve kanıtın kalitesini arttıran güncel bir yaklaşımdır. Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) Rehberi bu amaçla kullanılan önemli bir araçtır. PRESS rehberi sistematik derleme ve Sağlık Teknolojileri Değerlendirmesi raporları için yapılan literatür taramasında kullanılacak elektronik tarama stratejilerinin değerlendirilmesi amacıyla 2008 yılında geliştirilmiş, 2010 ve 2015 yıllarında güncellenmiştir. PRESS 2015 Rehberi; i) Kütüphanecilere Yönelik Öneriler, ii) Kanıt Temelli Kontrol Listesi, iii) Değerlendirme Formu ve iv) Uygulama Stratejileri olmak üzere dört bölümden oluşmaktadır. Bu derleme çalışmasında PRESS Rehberinin 2015 güncellemesi Türkçeye kazandırılarak kullanımının yaygınlaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Tüm dünyayla benzer şekilde ülkemizde özellikle sağlık alanında sistematik derleme metodolojisinin öneminin gittikçe arttığı göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, PRESS 2015 Rehberinin tarama stratejisinin oluşturulmasında ve uyarlanmasında araştırmacılar tarafından aktif olarak kullanılması önerilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• araştırma
• hakem değerlendirmesi
• kanıta dayalı uygulamalar
• rehber

Kaynakça

1. Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(5):49-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000446779.99522.f6
2. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
3. Chandler J, Cumpston M, Thomas J, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Clarke MJ. Chapter I: Introduction. 2020. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1. Accessed September 30, 2020 at https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/part-1.
4. Cooper C, Booth A, Varley-Campbell J, Britten N, Garside R. Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3
5. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Littlewood. A., Marshall C, Metzendorf M-I, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. 2020. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1. Accessed September 30, 2020 at https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/part-4
6. Institude of Medicine (IOM). Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2011.
7. Harari MB, Parola HR, Hartwell CJ, Riegelman A. Literature searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a review, evaluation, and recommendations. J Vocat Behav. 2020;118:103377. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103377
8. Knoll T, Omar MI, Maclennan S, Hernandez V, Canfield S, Yuan Y, et al. Key steps in conducting systematic reviews for underpinning clinical practice guidelines: methodology of the European Association of Urology. Eur Urol. 2018;73(2):290-300. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016

9. Rethlefsen M, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. 2020. Accessed September 30, 2020 at https://osf.io/sfc38/
10. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. JMLA. 2018;106(4):531-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.283
11. Franco JVA, Garrote VL, Escobar Liquitay CM, Vietto V. Identification of problems in search strategies in Cochrane Reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(3):408-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1302
12. McKeown S, Ross-White A. Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services. JMLA. 2019;107(3):411-9. doi: http://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.443
13. Relevo R. Methods guide for medical test reviews. AHRQ Publication No: 12-EC017. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012:1-188.
14. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwwdel D, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline explanation and elaboration (PRESS E&E). Ottawa: CADTH. 2016, 1-79.
15. McGowan J, Sampson M, Lefebvre C. An evidence based checklist for the peer review of electronic search strategies (PRESS EBC). Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2010;5(1):149-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.18438/B8SG8R
16. Relevo R, Paynter R. Peer review of search strategies. methods research report. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC068-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012:1-40. Retrieved from: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm
17. Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on Conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res. 2017;39(1):93-112. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
18. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021