↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
85 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0625-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Cooper, Andrew Booth, Nicky Britten, Ruth Garside

Abstract

The purpose and contribution of supplementary search methods in systematic reviews is increasingly acknowledged. Numerous studies have demonstrated their potential in identifying studies or study data that would have been missed by bibliographic database searching alone. What is less certain is how supplementary search methods actually work, how they are applied, and the consequent advantages, disadvantages and resource implications of each search method. The aim of this study is to compare current practice in using supplementary search methods with methodological guidance. Four methodological handbooks in informing systematic review practice in the UK were read and audited to establish current methodological guidance. Studies evaluating the use of supplementary search methods were identified by searching five bibliographic databases. Studies were included if they (1) reported practical application of a supplementary search method (descriptive) or (2) examined the utility of a supplementary search method (analytical) or (3) identified/explored factors that impact on the utility of a supplementary method, when applied in practice. Thirty-five studies were included in this review in addition to the four methodological handbooks. Studies were published between 1989 and 2016, and dates of publication of the handbooks ranged from 1994 to 2014. Five supplementary search methods were reviewed: contacting study authors, citation chasing, handsearching, searching trial registers and web searching. There is reasonable consistency between recommended best practice (handbooks) and current practice (methodological studies) as it relates to the application of supplementary search methods. The methodological studies provide useful information on the effectiveness of the supplementary search methods, often seeking to evaluate aspects of the method to improve effectiveness or efficiency. In this way, the studies advance the understanding of the supplementary search methods. Further research is required, however, so that a rational choice can be made about which supplementary search strategies should be used, and when.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 15 25%
Student > Master 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 17%
Social Sciences 8 14%
Psychology 5 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 11 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2018.
All research outputs
#425,429
of 15,339,858 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#59
of 1,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,888
of 408,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#16
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,339,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 408,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.