TL;DR: The limitations of EndNote as a search engine for searching MEDLINE were explored as related to MeSH, non-MeSH, citation verification, and author searching.
Abstract: Using EndNote version 7.0, the authors tested the search capabilities of the EndNote search engine for retrieving citations from MEDLINE for importation into EndNote, a citation management software package. Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed were selected for the comparison. Several searches were performed on Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed using EndNote as the search engine, and the same searches were run on both Ovid and PubMed directly. Findings indicate that it is preferable to search MEDLINE directly rather than using EndNote. The publishers of EndNote do warn its users about the limitations of their product as a search engine when searching external databases. In this article, the limitations of EndNote as a search engine for searching MEDLINE were explored as related to MeSH, non-MeSH, citation verification, and author searching.
TL;DR: If a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies is determined.
Abstract: Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies. A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through ‘pearl growing’, citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors’ topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of ‘key stages’ in the process of literature searching. Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process. Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.
Cites methods from "Retrieval comparison of EndNote to ..."
...set out methods for de-duplicating data and reviewing references in Endnote [103, 104] and Gall tests the direct search function within Endnote to access databases such as PubMed, finding a number of limitations ....
TL;DR: 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters are identified.
Abstract: Objective: What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles that librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians’ systematic reviews services. Methods: For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts. Results: We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles. Conclusion: Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program .
TL;DR: The results show mixed search reliability, depending on the database and type of search performed, in academic databases' search interfaces versus the EndNote search interface.
Abstract: The use of bibliographic management software and its internal search interfaces is now pervasive among researchers. This study compares the results between searches conducted in academic databases' search interfaces versus the EndNote search interface. The results show mixed search reliability, depending on the database and type of search performed.
TL;DR: This study compared citation format in EndNote® version 7 and Reference Manager® version 11 with the citation format for references found in the instructions to authors from the most significant medical literature.
Abstract: The study compared citation format in EndNote version 7 and Reference Manager version 11 with the citation format for references found in the instructions to authors from the most significant medical literature. The resulting information should be very useful to those who depend on citation management software to format and organize their references for publication in medicine, and librarians and others who teach the use of citation management software.
TL;DR: There are many reasons to conduct literature reviews, including preparation of an article for a peer-reviewed journal or research grant proposals, completion of requirements for academic degrees, and more.
Abstract: Conducting literature reviews is an essential tool for knowledge building in nursing and health science. There are many reasons to conduct literature reviews, including preparation of an article for a peer-reviewed journal or research grant proposals, completion of requirements for academic degrees,