The PRISMA-S Group has developed an extension to PRISMA to assist researchers in documenting their literature searches for systematic reviews and other knowledge syntheses. The checklist identifies what to document in terms of information sources and methods, search strategies, peer review, and records management.
This checklist (table 1) as well as explanations and elaborations are provided in the following article:
Rethlefsen ML, 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. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):39. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
|INFORMATION SOURCES AND METHODS|
|Database name||1||Name each individual database searched, stating the platform for each.|
|Multi-database searching||2||If databases were searched simultaneously on a single platform, state the name of the platform, listing all of the databases searched.|
|Study registries||3||List any study registries searched.|
|Online resources and browsing||4||Describe any online or print source purposefully searched or browsed (e.g., tables of contents, print conference proceedings, web sites), and how this was done.|
|Citation searching||5||Indicate whether cited references or citing references were examined, and describe any methods used for locating cited/citing references (e.g., browsing reference lists, using a citation index, setting up email alerts for references citing included studies).|
|Contacts||6||Indicate whether additional studies or data were sought by contacting authors, experts, manufacturers, or others.|
|Other methods||7||Describe any additional information sources or search methods used.|
|Full search strategies||8||Include the search strategies for each database and information source, copied and pasted exactly as run.|
|Limits and restrictions||9||Specify that no limits were used, or describe any limits or restrictions applied to a search (e.g., date or time period, language, study design) and provide justification for their use.|
|Search filters||10||Indicate whether published search filters were used (as originally designed or modified), and if so, cite the filter(s) used.|
|Prior work||11||Indicate when search strategies from other literature reviews were adapted or reused for a substantive part or all of the search, citing the previous review(s).|
|Updates||12||Report the methods used to update the search(es) (e.g., rerunning searches, email alerts).|
|Dates of searches||13||For each search strategy, provide the date when the last search occurred.|
|Peer review||14||Describe any search peer review process.|
|Total records||15||Document the total number of records identified from each database and other information sources.|
|Deduplication||16||Describe the processes and any software used to deduplicate records from multiple database searches and other information sources.|
Table 1 is reproduced here per a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Changes made: The column header "Item #" was changed to "#" for better display.
The PRISMA flow diagram is used to illustrate the flow of records through the search and screening process.
Record the information for each database and document the number of records before and after removing duplicates.
|Platform||Database||Database coverage dates||# Rec.||Search date||Notes|
|OvidSP||Ovid MEDLINE ALL (R)||1946-Present||1,023||2018/01/12||No limits or filters used|
|OvidSP||Embase Classic + Embase||1947-Present||2,046||2018/01/12||No limits or filters used|
Total # of records before removing duplicates: 1023 + 2046 = 3069
Total # of records after removing duplicates: 2056
Original searches (Copy and paste exactly as executed):
Ovid MEDLINE ALL (R)
Creating comprehensive searches on certain topics might require you to search antiquated, non-standard, exclusionary, and potentially offensive terms in order to capture older literature. Colleagues at the University of Michigan provide suggested processes and wording for addressing this reality.
Addressing antiquated, non-standard, exclusionary, and potentially offensive terms in evidence syntheses and systematic searches. Townsend, Whitney; Anderson, Patricia; Capellari, Emily; Haines, Kate; Hansen, Sam; James, LaTeesa; MacEachern, Mark; Rana, Gurpreet; Saylor, Kate. 2022-09-09. https://dx.doi.org/10.7302/6408
Due to a large influx of requests, there may be an extended wait time for librarian support on knowledge syntheses.
Find a librarian in your subject area to help you with your knowledge synthesis project.