Updating search strategies for literature reviews with OUR2D2: an open-source computer application.
Background: While writing a scoping review, we needed to update our search strategy. We wanted to capture articles generated by our additional search terms and articles published since our original search. Simultaneously, we strove to optimize project resources by not rescreening articles that had b...
| Publicado en: | Journal of the Medical Library Association Vol. 109; no. 2; pp. 317 - 323 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
| Formato: | pictorial tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
University of Pittsburgh, University Library System
Apr2021
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=151637573&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 151637573 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 15365050 PI8 jtl: Journal of the Medical Library Association issn: 15365050 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Apr2021 vid: 109 iid: 2 pid: 60406 pub: University of Pittsburgh, University Library System place: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania artinfo: ui: 151637573 151637573 151637573 10.5195/jmla.2021.1105 151637573 ppf: 317 ppct: 6 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Updating search strategies for literature reviews with OUR2D2: an open-source computer application. aug: au: Lohr, Abby M. Van Gorden, Noah McClelland, D. Jean Dubinsky, Ellen Gerald, Lynn B. Wilkinson-Lee, Ada Carvajal, Scott C. affil: Health Promotion Sciences Department, PhD Candidate, University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health sug: subj: Computerized Literature Searching Methods Software Literature Review Scoping Review Databases, Health Systematic Review Time Factors PubMed Embase CINAHL Database Software Design Data Analysis, Computer Assisted ab: Background: While writing a scoping review, we needed to update our search strategy. We wanted to capture articles generated by our additional search terms and articles published since our original search. Simultaneously, we strove to optimize project resources by not rescreening articles that had been captured in our original results. Case presentation: In response, we created Open Update Re-run Deduplicate (OUR2D2), a computer application that allows the user to compare search results from a variety of library databases. OUR2D2 supports extensible markup language (XML) files from EndNote and comma-separated values (CSV) files using article titles for comparisons. We conducted unit tests to ensure appropriate functionality as well as accurate data extraction and analysis. We tested OUR2D2 by comparing original and updated search results from PubMed, Embase, Clarivate Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, and Lens and estimate that this application saved twenty-one hours of work during the screening process. Conclusions: OUR2D2 could be useful for individuals seeking to update literature review strategies across fields without rescreening articles from previous searches. Because the OUR2D2 source code is freely available with a permissive license, we recommend this application for researchers conducting literature reviews who need to update their search results over time, want a powerful and flexible analysis framework, and may not have access to paid subscription tools. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: pictorial tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|