It's in your hands: the value of handsearching in conducting systematic reviews of public health interventions
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While there is an emerging evidence base in public health, the evidence can often be difficult to find. Indexing of journals in MEDLINE has assisted those conducting systematic reviews to more easily identify published studies. However, information technology and the processes associated with indexing are not infallible. Studies may not be correctly marked by study design which may mean they are missed in the electronic searching process. Handsearching for evidence of intervention effectiveness has therefore become a recognized tool in the systematic review process. METHODS: Resources to guide handsearching activity currently are clinically focused, and may not be sensitive to the characteristics of public health studies where study terminology may differ. In response to this issue, the Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field (the Field) developed and implemented a small study to recruit and support handsearchers from around the world to identify health promotion and public health trials and systematic reviews. A strategic framework was developed to recruit and support handsearchers to search six public health-related journals. RESULTS: In total, 131 trials and 21 systematic reviews were identified. The greatest value of handsearching was found to be in supplement editions and abstract sections of journals CONCLUSIONS: The study focused exclusively on indexed journals with the intention that tools and methods developed could be used to explore the potential for handsearching in non-indexed journals and for unpublished studies. The findings from this study will continue to support handsearching efforts and in doing so contribute to high quality systematic reviews of public health interventions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The protocol for this study was designed following PRISMA guidelines using the methodology described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook on Systematic Reviews of Health Promotion and Public Health Program.
“The protocol for this study was designed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [16] using the methodology described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook on Systematic Reviews of Health Promotion and Public Health Program [17].”
From Toxicological Findings of Self-Poisoning Suicidal Deaths: A Systematic Review by Countries (2022) · cites this paper as [17]
Cites
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127 · see citing works
Egger, M., Jüni, P., Bartlett, C., Holenstein, F., & Sterne, J. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7010 · Cited by 1,181 · see citing works
Evidence-Based Public Health: Moving Beyond Randomized Trials
Victora, C. G., Habicht, J.-P., & Bryce, J. (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.400 · Cited by 1,056 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ricci, F., Fedorowski, A., Radico, F., Romanello, M., Tatasciore, A., Di Nicola, M., Zimarino, M., & De Caterina, R. (2015) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv093 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
Toxicological Findings of Self-Poisoning Suicidal Deaths: A Systematic Review by Countries
Albano, G. D., Malta, G., La Spina, C., Rifiorito, A., Provenzano, V., Triolo, V., Vaiano, F., Bertol, E., Zerbo, S., & Argo, A. (2022) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics10110654 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program
Relevo, R., & Balshem, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.022 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Levay, P., Ainsworth, N., Kettle, R., & Morgan, A. (2016) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1158 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
- Authors
- Armstrong, R., Jackson, N., Doyle, J., Waters, E., & Howes, F.
- Affiliations
- Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (AU)
- Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
- Cochrane Canada (CA)
- Deakin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Armstrong, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 388-391
- ISSN
- 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3842
- 1741-3850
- OpenAlex
- W2127487482
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Government
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, public health interventions, trial identification, MEDLINE indexing, unpublished research
- MeSH terms
- Health Promotion, Humans, Public Health, Review Literature as Topic, Information Storage and Retrieval
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review