Cited by 104Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions

Open access
Wright, Kath, Golder, Su, Rodriguez-Lopez, Rocio·2014·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The value of citation searches as part of the systematic review process is currently unknown. While the major guides to conducting systematic reviews state that citation searching should be carried out in addition to searching bibliographic databases there are still few studies in the literature that support this view. Rather than using a predefined search strategy to retrieve studies, citation searching uses known relevant papers to identify further papers. METHODS: We describe a case study about the effectiveness of using the citation sources Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science and OVIDSP MEDLINE to identify records for inclusion in a systematic review.We used the 40 included studies identified by traditional database searches from one systematic review of interventions for multiple risk behaviours. We searched for each of the included studies in the four citation sources to retrieve the details of all papers that have cited these studies.We carried out two analyses; the first was to examine the overlap between the four citation sources to identify which citation tool was the most useful; the second was to investigate whether the citation searches identified any relevant records in addition to those retrieved by the original database searches. RESULTS: The highest number of citations was retrieved from Google Scholar (1680), followed by Scopus (1173), then Web of Science (1095) and lastly OVIDSP (213). To retrieve all the records identified by the citation tracking searching all four resources was required. Google Scholar identified the highest number of unique citations.The citation tracking identified 9 studies that met the review's inclusion criteria. Eight of these had already been identified by the traditional databases searches and identified in the screening process while the ninth was not available in any of the databases when the original searches were carried out. It would, however, have been identified by two of the database search strategies if searches had been carried out later. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results from this investigation, citation searching as a supplementary search method for systematic reviews may not be the best use of valuable time and resources. It would be useful to verify these findings in other reviews.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2288-14-73

Cites

49 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wright, K., Golder, S., & Rodriguez-Lopez, R.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Wright, Kath
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2014-06-03
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
73-73
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041004369
Cited by
103
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
citation searching, citation tracking, systematic review search strategy, bibliographic database searching, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, multiple risk behaviors
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Risk-Taking, Databases, Bibliographic, 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