Article
Detection rate of relevant studies for reviews is higher when study authors define the study population in title: a bibliographic study of literature on older people
Search Medline for
Authors
-
Karina Karolina De Santis
- Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS, Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Deutschland; Leibniz-Science Campus Digital Public Health Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland
-
Lea Mergenthal
- Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS, Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Deutschland
-
Lara Christianson
- Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS, Department of Administration, Deutschland
-
Annalena Busskamp
- Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA), Department Q6- Adults, Seniors, Women’s and Men’s Health, Health Equity, Deutschland
-
Claudia Vonstein
- Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA), Department Q6- Adults, Seniors, Women’s and Men’s Health, Health Equity, Deutschland
-
Hajo Zeeb
- Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS, Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Deutschland; University of Bremen, Faculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, Bremen, Deutschland
| Published: | March 21, 2023 |
|---|
Outline
Text
Background/research question: Literature searches for reviews with systematic methodology (e.g., systematic, scoping or rapid reviews) typically produce a large number of studies. Title and abstract screening of such studies is time consuming. This bibliographic study aimed to assess the detection rate of relevant studies for a Scoping-Review if study population is defined in title.
Methods: A protocol for this study was prospectively registered in OSF and published [1]. A search in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and SCOPUS (through to March 3, 2022) was performed to identify studies on digital technologies for health promotion and disease prevention focusing on the population of older people aged 50 or older. Studies were screened using the EndNote smart groups function and manually by human reviewers. Detection rate of relevant studies was assessed using descriptive statistics.
Results: The 2.201 studies from the database search were divided into two groups based on a definition of older people (i.e., presence or absence of terms ‘older’ or ‘senior’ or ‘retired’ or ‘elderly’) in titles using EndNote. Among 557 studies with older people in titles, 62 (11%) were detected as relevant for a Scoping-Review. Among 1.644 studies without older people in titles, only 14 (0.8%) were detected as relevant for a Scoping-Review. The 14 studies had no definition of study population in title, used other terms to describe older people (e.g., menopausal women, ageing, underserved communities, old age, or sedentary adults) or reported age cut-off or age range (e.g., adults aged over 50 or people aged 50–79).
Conclusion: Study authors should define their study population in title to improve the detection rate of the study and reduce the screening time for reviewers. EndNote can assist screening by sorting studies into potentially relevant and irrelevant based on keywords used in titles. To save time, rapid review authors could consider selecting studies for manual abstract screen only if study population is defined in title.
Competing interests: This research was financed by the Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA), Germany. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.
- De Santis KK, Mergenthal L, Christianson L, Zeeb H. Digital Technologies for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in Older People: Protocol for a Scoping Review. JMIR Res Protoc. 2022 Jul 21;11(7):e37729. DOI: 10.2196/37729.
