Validated geographic search filters for bibliographic databases: a scoping review protocol.

Publisher: Wolters Kluwer Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101764819 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2689-8381 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 26898381 NLM ISO Abbreviation: JBI Evid Synth

Original Publication: [Philadelphia, PA] : Wolters Kluwer, [2020]-

Databases, Bibliographic* ; Information Storage and Retrieval*/methods; Humans ; Search Engine/methods ; Review Literature as Topic

Objective: The purpose of this scoping review is to identify validated geographic search filters and report their methodology and performance measures.
Introduction: Data on specific geographic areas can be required for evidence syntheses topics, such as the investigation of regional inequalities in health care or to answer context-specific epidemiological questions. Search filters are useful tools for reviewers aiming to identify publications with common characteristics in bibliographic databases. Geographic search filters limit the literature search results to a specific geographic feature (eg, a country or region).
Inclusion Criteria: We will include reports on validated geographic search filters that aim to identify research evidence about a defined geographic area (eg, a country/region or a group of countries/regions).
Methods: This review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The literature search will be conducted in PubMed and Embase. The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group Search Filter resource and Google Scholar will also be searched. Reports published in any language, from database inception to the present, will be considered for inclusion. Two researchers will independently screen the title, abstract, and full text of the search results. A third reviewer will be consulted in the event of any disagreements. The data extraction will include study characteristics, basic characteristics of the geographical search filter (eg, country/region), and the methods used to develop and validate the search filter. The extracted data will be summarized narratively and presented in a table.
Review Registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/5czhs.
Competing Interests: DP is a member of the JBI Evidence Synthesis editorial advisory board, but was not involved in the editorial processing of the manuscript. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 JBI.)

Jenkins M. Evaluation of methodological search filters--a review. Health Info Libr J 2004;21(3):148–163.
Wilczynski NL, Marks S, Haynes RB. Search strategies for identifying qualitative studies in CINAHL. Qual Health Res 2007;17(5):705–710.
National Library of Medicine. PubMed clinical queries [internet]. NLM. n.d. [cited 2023 Oct 14]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinical/ .
Glanville J, Bayliss S, Booth A, Dundar Y, Fernandes H, Fleeman ND, et al. So many filters, so little time: the development of a search filter appraisal checklist. J Med Libr Assoc 2008;96(4):356–361.
Ayiku L, Levay P, Hudson T, Craven J, Barrett E, Finnegan A, et al. The medline UK filter: development and validation of a geographic search filter to retrieve research about the UK from OVID medline. Health Info Libr J 2017;34(3):200–216.
Ayiku L, Craven J, Hudson T, Levay P. How to develop a validated geographic search filter: five key steps. Evid Based Lib Inform Pract 2020;15(1):170–178.
Sampson M, Zhang L, Morrison A, Barrowman NJ, Clifford TJ, Platt RW, et al. An alternative to the hand searching gold standard: validating methodological search filters using relative recall. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:33.
Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, Vet HCWd. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 2009;18(8):1115–1123.
Bachmann LM, Coray R, Estermann P. Riet Gt. Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: reducing the number needed to read. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002;9(6):653–658.
Munn Z, Pollock D, Khalil H, Alexander L, Mclnerney P, Godfrey CM, et al. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evid Synth 2022;20(4):950–952.
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement 2021;19(1):3–10.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Eextension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467–473.
Glanville JLC, Manson P, Robinson S, Shaw N. eTIISS-G ISSG Search Filter Resource [internet]. ISSG; 2006 [cited 2023 Oct 14]. Available from: https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home .
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.
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016;5(1):210.
Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth 2022;20(4):953–968.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.

Date Created: 20240212 Date Completed: 20240807 Latest Revision: 20241101

20241102

10.11124/JBIES-23-00445

38344846