The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. RESULTS: Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by "snowballing" (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“and snowballing is the best approach for identifying sources published in obscure journals according to their study.”
From Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering (2014) · cites this paper as [15]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These additional methods were used because prior work by Greehalgh and Peacock [91] found that less efficient methods like snowballing are likely to identify important sources that would otherwise be missed, since predefined protocol driven search strategies cannot solely be relied on.”
From Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review (2020) · cites this paper as [91]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We piloted the use of a highly structured search strategy using protocol-driven searches across a range of electronic databases but, like Greenhalgh and Peacock [17] found that was this unsatisfactory.”
From Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups (2006) · cites this paper as [17]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Greenhalgh and Peacock [15] applied three different search methods in their research, and concluded that protocol-driven search approaches by themselves are not necessarily the most efficient method regardless of the number of databases used”
From Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering (2014) · cites this paper as [15]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“the included articles’ reference lists also were evaluated (using the snowball method) to ensure that all relevant articles were included in the study [21].”
From Advantages and disadvantages of mobile applications for workplace health promotion: A scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“After reading the first author ' s reports on the literature, the full research team decided to exclude another 71 articles from the selection that, based on the full text, proved not to meet the inclusion criteria.”
From The Role of School in Adolescents’ Identity Development. A Literature Review (2019) · cites this paper as Greenhalgh and Peacock (2005)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“As many relevant studies may be identified in sources other than electronic databases [29,30], searches that extend beyond the standard electronic databases should be considered.”
From COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology (2019) · cites this paper as [29]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581960501000110 · Cited by 2,132
Competing interests: none declared.
Hirsch, L. (2006) · Cited by 1,396
Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001 · Cited by 913
Self-citationRoyle, P., & Milne, R. (2003) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462303000552 · Cited by 693
Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organisations: A Systematic Literature Review
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Bate, P., Macfarlane, F., & Kyriakidou, O. (2007) · Cited by 453
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,004 of 1,004
Paquin, J., Tremblay, R., Islam, H., Riesco, E., Marcotte-Chénard, A., & Dionne, I. J. (2024) · Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism · doi:10.1139/apnm-2024-0128 · Cited by 7
Digital service delivery applications in corrections: A scoping review
Ross, S., Wood, M., Baird, R., & Lundberg, K. (2023) · doi:10.52922/crg77109 · Cited by 7
Janssens, L., Kuppens, T., Andersson, P., & Struyven, K. (2024) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2024.100988 · Cited by 5
Nascimento, L. P. D., Taveira, K. V. M., Berretta, F., Stuginski-Barbosa, J., Souza, B. D. M. D., Andrade, D. C. A. D., Canto, G. D. L., & Porporatti, A. L. (2020) · Brazilian Journal of Development · doi:10.34117/bjdv6n10-447 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Greenhalgh, Trisha
- ORCID
- Greenhalgh, Trisha
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2005-10-17
- Volume
- 331
- Issue
- 7524
- Pages
- 1064-1065
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC1283190
- OpenAlex
- W2149364707
- Semantic Scholar
- 45cd85a4c05c0c295e4569e08f20a6f3268e6390
- Cited by
- 2,045
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 162 · 2025: 147 · 2024: 202 · 2023: 188 · 2022: 187 · 2021: 210 · 2020: 157 · 2019: 139 · 2018: 88 · 2017: 92 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 74 · 2014: 83 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 41
- FWCI
- 2.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, snowballing, protocol adherence, database searching, hand searching
- MeSH terms
- Data Collection, 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
