Textual evidence systematic reviews series paper 2: challenges and strategies in developing a search strategy for systematic reviews of textual evidence.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this paper is to highlight and address challenges as well as provide strategies for developing searches for systematic reviews of textual evidence.

Introduction: When conducting a JBI review of textual evidence, it is important to consider different sources of published and unpublished material. While systematic search methodologies have been well-established for searching traditional peer-reviewed literature, applying those same rigorous methods to literature outside of academic journals can be more challenging. This paper highlights and addresses the challenges of developing searches for systematic reviews of textual evidence and provides strategies on how to conduct these. It takes into consideration the unique complexities of locating published material outside of academic journals and presents guidance for developing more robust searches incorporating textual evidence.

Discussion: Researchers should acknowledge the value of textual evidence, including opinions, narratives, and policies, as crucial for informing health care practices. It is also essential to clearly define the types of textual evidence needed and establish comprehensive search parameters to ensure thorough coverage. To enhance the search process, researchers should follow a structured 3-phase approach: first, identify relevant keywords; second, conduct tailored searches in bibliographic databases; and third, perform supplementary searches. Furthermore, it is recommended they collaborate with information specialists and experts to refine and strengthen their search techniques. Researchers should also explore a variety of sources, including dedicated databases, conference proceedings, theses, dissertations, and media reports, to gather valuable textual evidence. Finally, it is important to systematically document all search processes to support transparency and reproducibility in the review.

Conclusion: Searching broadly across bibliographic databases and including textual evidence from non-academic journals may provide the best available and most appropriate evidence to address specific questions.