The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
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
Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 · Cited by 2,045 · cited 1×
“One study [7] audited the sources used in a systematic review of complex evidence i.”
BackgroundFinding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews
Eden, J., Levit, L. A., Berg, A. O., & Morton, S. C. (2013) · Cited by 943
Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006) · Biomedical Digital Libraries · doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-7 · Cited by 752
Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews
Kugley, S., Wade, A., Thomas, J., Mahood, Q., Jørgensen, A. K., Hammerstrøm, K., & Sathe, N. (2017) · Campbell Systematic Reviews · doi:10.4073/cmg.2016.1 · Cited by 371
Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Wong, R. (2010) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863.x · Cited by 318
Kreuter, M. W., & Strecher, V. J. (1996) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/11.1.97 · Cited by 305
Improving Multiple Behaviors for Colorectal Cancer Prevention Among African American Church Members.
Campbell, M. K., James, A. S., Hudson, M. A., Carr, C., Jackson, E., Oakes, V., Demissie, S., Farrell, D. W., & Tessaro, I. A. (2004) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.492 · Cited by 243
de Vries, H., Kremers, S., Smeets, T., Brug, J., & Eijmael, K. (2008) · American Journal of Health Promotion · doi:10.4278/ajhp.22.6.417 · Cited by 215
Spring, B., Schneider, K., McFadden, H. G., Vaughn, J., Kozak, A. T., Smith, M., Moller, A. C., Epstein, L. H., DeMott, A., Hedeker, D., et al. (2012) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1044 · Cited by 208
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Higgins J, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration, Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
- Campo Osaba MA: Actividad comunitaria de promocion de la salud: resultados de un ensayo clinicoIn V Premios Steve. Unidos por la Atencion al Paciente. Barcelona (Spain). Ediciones Mayo. 2013, 54-63. http://www.esteve.es/EsteveArchivos/premiosesteve/2012/entrega/index.html#/94/ ,
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. (2019) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/sfc38 · Cited by 3,696
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., PRISMA-S Group, Blunt, H., Brigham, T., et al. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z · Cited by 3,714
Self-citationHaddaway, N. R., Grainger, M. J., & Gray, C. T. (2022) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1563 · Cited by 604
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group (2021) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.962 · Cited by 525
Smartphone addiction is increasing across the world: A meta-analysis of 24 countries
Olson, J. A., Sandra, D. A., Colucci, É. S., Bikaii, A. A., Chmoulevitch, D., Nahas, J., Raz, A., & Veissière, S. P. L. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107138 · Cited by 474
Metadata
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC4048585
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › 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
