Skip to main content

Table 3 Utility of search sources in identifying relevant studies

From: The selection of search sources influences the findings of a systematic review of people’s views: a case study in public health

Search source

Records retrieved from search

Studies included from that source (% precision)

Studies included that were unique to that source

Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA)

625

3 (0.48%)

1

Author contact (n ≥ 50)

n/a (12)

2

2

Bibliomap (EPPI-Centre health promotion research register)

16

1 (6.25%)

 

British Education Index

61

1 (1.64%)

 

British Library Integrated Catalogue

n/a (9)

  

Child data

561

2 (0.36%)

2

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)

1703

2 (0.11%)

 

Dissertation Abstracts

451

1 (0.22%)

1

Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)

468

1 (0.21%)

1

Forward citation checking (Web of Knowledge)

88

1 (1.14%)

 

Google

100*

2

 

Google Scholar

300*

  

HealthPromis (UK Health Development Agency research register)

235

2 (0.85%)

 

Index of British Theses

n/a (16)

2

2

International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)

402

5 (1.24%)

1

Journal hand searching (3 journals)

n/a (13)

  

Previous EPPI-Centre review [24]

n/a (13)

2

2

PsycINFO

1691

7 (0.41%)

 

Pubmed

3697

8 (0.22%)

2

Reference checking of included studies

n/a (20)

1

1

Scirus (scientific research search engine)

200*

1

1

Social Care Online

150

1 (0.67%)

 

Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)

1915

7 (0.37%)

 

Website hand searches of 16 sites

n/a (8)

2

1

Zetoc (British Library’s electronic table of contents)

n/a (12)

  

TOTAL

12766

54 studies**

17

studies**

  1. n/a = screening was offline and a complete record of total items retrieved and screened is not available.
  2. *The quantity screened from a larger list of search results, therefore precision is not calculated.
  3. **54 studies from 61 research records, which following removal of duplicates were 28 studies of which 17 studies were unique to one source.