Undermind.ai can be used to aid in locating seed papers prior to more comprehensive, expert searching - though there is also Google Scholar, Lens.org and Semantic Scholar.
"... current evidence does not support GenAI use in evidence synthesis without human involvement or oversight. However, for most tasks other than searching, GenAI may have a role in assisting humans with evidence synthesis." — Clark et al (2025).
Expert searching refers to a range of advanced search skills and knowledge that health sciences librarians (HSLs) cultivate in order to provide advanced research and consultation services and support to user communities. Increasingly, expert searchers are being asked for their expertise in applying AI-powered search tools to the process of comprehensive searching.
It seems axiomatic that the ability to locate relevant evidence-based information to answer specific clinical queries is even more vital in the artificial intelligence (AI) era. In fact, health sciences librarians are sought out specifically for their expert search skills and ability to locate relevant research papers using comprehensive search strategies. To immerse yourself in discussions of expert search skills, knowledge and abilities needed for this type of searching, start with MLA's The role of expert searching in health sciences libraries. HSLs are asked to bring their expertise and knowledge of information sources to bear at the outset of any review investigation.
Note: Consult your local academic health or hospital librarian to discuss what kinds of searching they support (and at what level) in their work.
What is expert searching?
Expert searching is a mediated process where users seek consultation from a recognized expert in searching such as an information retrieval specialist or librarian. The recognized expert identifies the information needs of the user, devises a strategy to uncover useful information and then performs a search that requires a combination of the following key skills and knowledge:
knowledge of information sources, and subject domain knowledge (as appropriate),
ability to perceive implications of the articulated information need,
ability to identify and search resources in proprietary databases and the general web,
ability to recognize personal searcher limitations,
knowledge of database indexing or metadata conventions,
expert knowledge of retrieval systems, platforms, syntax and updating practices,
ability to employ an iterative and heuristic search process for discovery of evidence,
ability to efficiently and effectively evaluate retrieved evidence,
ability to process results and present coherently through removal of irrelevant items from search results,
ability to document search for end-user information, grant applications, clinical trials or eventual publication,
ability to use deductive and inductive reasoning combined with subject domain knowledge to respond to information needs.
Developing expert searches
Take a step-wise approach to constructing your search strategies; break down concepts; keywords; start with seed papers
Consider developing your search strategies and "filters" in a Word document before going online
Use a template or worksheet with concepts listed, Boolean operators, delimitors, databases, websites
Create search strategies by using different "block" for each concept & stage
Use Boolean operators to connect major concept blocks
Invite peer review or critical appraisal from other search experts
Document your search activities for auditing, reproducibility
According to Saleh et al (2014), "...the median time searching all resources was 471 minutes and this includes grey literature searching...". See et al. Grey literature: searching for health sciences systematic reviews: a prospective study of time spent and resources utilized. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. 2014;9(3).
Reporting expert searches
PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Search Extension was specifically developed to improve the reporting of literature search strategies in systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses. Published in 2021 to address the need for transparent and comprehensive reporting of search methods, it is now foundational to the quality and reproducibility of systematic reviews.
Key Points about PRISMA-S:
Purpose: PRISMA-S provides a 16-item checklist to guide researchers in reporting the details of their literature search processes, ensuring transparency and replicability. It focuses on how searches are planned, executed, and documented.
Scope: It applies to systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and other evidence synthesis studies, complementing the main PRISMA 2020 statement. It is particularly useful for reporting searches across multiple databases, grey literature, and other sources.
Checklist Items: The PRISMA-S checklist includes items such as:Database Selection: Specifying which databases were searched (e.g., PubMed, Scopus) and why.
Search strategies: Providing full search strategies, including search terms, Boolean operators, and filters.
Limits and restrictions: Detailing any limits applied (e.g., date, language, or publication type).
Grey Literature: Reporting searches of non-database sources like conference proceedings or websites.
Search tools and processes: Describing the use of automation tools, software, or peer review of search strategies.
Documentation: Ensuring search strategies are fully reproducible, often by including them in appendices or repositories.
Transparent search reporting helps readers assess the comprehensiveness of the review, reduces bias, and allows others to replicate or update the search. It addresses past criticisms of incomplete or vague search descriptions in systematic reviews.
In the context of expert searching, field searching is an important concept in locating relevant documents. Search terms, either controlled or "free text" terms or "keywords", and/or related terms or concepts, can be searched on their own in all fields or within "specific fields only" such as title, abstract and other parts of a record. Searching for relevant papers in titles, author supplied keyword fields and index terms (or, subject headings) fields is recommended as a first pass in "pre-searching" for a topic. However, expert searchers look at a range of other considerations such as:
Search concepts, phrases or queries: user-defined word strings (of any length) treated as single units to find exact or close matches;
Searching in subject fields or by tags: labels or metadata used to categorize or filter content (e.g., myocardial infarction in MEDLINE);
Search filters: a set of terms used as a "hedge" to narrow results (e.g., study type, method, etc.).
Synonyms and abbreviations: words with similar meanings to expand search; abbreviated forms such as EDI for equity, diversiy, inclusion;
Wildcards using symbols(e.g., * or # or ?) representing variable characters in searches;
Entity searching: specific objects or things... people, places, or organizations (e.g., "Downtown Eastside" or "Canadian Medical Association");
Facet searching: broader attributes or categories for refining searches (e.g., class of drugs in cardiovascular diseases).
N-grams: sequences of n-words used for matching (e.g., bigrams are a sequence of two consecutive words (or tokens) extracted from a text);
Bethel A, Rogers M. A checklist to assess database-hosting platforms for designing and running searches for systematic reviews. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31:43-53.
Craven J et al. A comparison of searching the Cochrane library databases via CRD, Ovid and Wiley: implications for systematic searching and information services. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31:54-63.
Booth A. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: Sage, 2012.
Booth A. How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments. Int J Tech Assess Health Care. 2010;26.
Booth A. Unpacking your literature search toolbox: on search styles and tactics. Health Info Libr J. 2008;25: 313–317.
Booth A. "Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literatures earches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Oct;94(4):421-9, e205.
Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Multidisciplinary bibliographic databases. J Korean Med Sci. 2013 Sep;28(9):1270-1275.
Goodall DL, Marples G. Approaches to producing credible and useful literature reviews. Cancer Nurs Pract. 2013;12(3).
Lasserre K. Expert searching in health librarianship: a literature review to identify international issues and Australian concerns. Health Info Libr J. 2012;29(1):3–15.
Mahood Q, Eerd DV, Irvin E. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Res Synth Method. 2014.
Medical Library Association. Role of expert searching in health sciences libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):42-4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15685273/
Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015Sep;13(3):141-6.
Relevo R, Paynter R. Peer review of search strategies. Methods Research Report. Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under contract 290-2007-100572. AHRQ Publication 12-EHC068-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2012.
Note: Please use your critical reading skills while reading entries. No warranties, implied or actual, are granted for any health or medical search or AI information obtained while using these pages. Check with your librarian for more contextual, accurate information.
