Cited by 92Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Sciences Research and Educationscientometrics and bibliometrics research

It's in your hands: the value of handsearching in conducting systematic reviews of public health interventions

Armstrong, R., Jackson, N., Doyle, J., Waters, E., Howes, F.·2005·Journal of Public Health

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tools and methods developed could be used to explore the potential for handsearching in non-indexed journals and for unpublished studies.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

Crossref · 10.1093/pubmed/fdi056

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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