Expert searching

Last Update

25 April 2022

Keywords

systematic review; knowledge synthesis; concept synthesis; critical interpretive synthesis; integrative review; meta-synthesis; meta ethnography; metastudy; meta-interpretation narrative synthesis; realist review, rapid review

Introduction

Expert searching refers to a range of advanced search skills and knowledge health librarians cultivate in order to provide advanced research and consultation services to users. The ability to locate information to answer specific clinical queries is highly coveted in the Google age. In addition, health librarians are sought for their expert skills and ability to locate all relevant research papers for systematic reviews. To immerse yourself in various discussions of the expert skills, knowledge and abilities needed for this type of searching, start with MLA's The role of expert searching in health sciences libraries. Keep in mind it is widely-known that health librarians can bring their expertise and knowledge of information sources to bear at the outset of any review. 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 such as an information retrieval specialist or librarian. The recognized expert identifies the information need, devises a strategy to uncover useful information and performs a search that requires a combination of the following key skills and knowledge:

knowledge of information sources, and subject domain knowledge
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 need

See CADTH. Finding the Evidence: Literature Searching Tools in Support of Systematic Reviews

Developing expert searches

Take a step-wise approach to constructing your search strategies; break down concepts; keywords
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).

Sources

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.
Bradley SM. Examination of the clinical queries and systematic review “hedges” in EMBASE and MEDLINE. JCHLA / JABSC. 2010;32(2):27–37.
Brettle A. Information skills training: a systematic review of the literature. Health Info Libr J. 2003;20 Suppl 1:3–9.
Briss PA. Developing and using the guide to community preventive services: lessons learned about evidence-based public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2004;25:281–302.
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Mar 1;126(5):376–80.
Davis K, Drey N, Gould D. What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(10):1386–1400.
Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Multidisciplinary bibliographic databases. J Korean Med Sci. 2013 Sep;28(9):1270-1275.
Golder S, Loke Y. Search strategies to identify information on adverse effects: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009;97(2):84–92.
Goodall DL, Marples G. Approaches to producing credible and useful literature reviews. Cancer Nurs Pract. 2013;12(3).
Holst R, Funk CJ. State of the art of expert searching: results of a Medical Library Association survey. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):45-52.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. 2011.
Kaunelis D, Farrah K, Severn M. The missing 2%: PubMed NOT MEDLINE. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Poster, CHLA/ABSC Conference, 2011.
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.
Librarians Named in New IOM Standards for Systematic Reviews. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews, one of two new reports just issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), recommends twenty-one standards for performing high-quality reviews. Librarians and other information specialists are mentioned under the “Standards for Finding and Assessing Individual Studies” in how to conduct comprehensive systematic searches for evidence.
Mahood Q, Eerd DV, Irvin E. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Res Synth Method. 2014
Nicholson S. Understanding the foundation: the state of generalist search education in library schools as related to the needs of expert searchers in medical libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(1):61–68.
National Library of Medicine. Healthy people 2010 information access project. Bethesda, MD: Library, 2003.
Evidence-based practice for public health project. Worcester, MA: Lamar Soutter Library, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 2004.
McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(1):44–80.
Medical Library Association. Role of expert searching in health sciences libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(1):42–4.
Medical Library Association. Policy statement: role of expert searching in health sciences libraries. Chicago, IL: 2003.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy people 2010. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidancefor 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.
Ring N, Ritchie K, Mandava L. A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews. NHS Scotland 2011
Royle P, Waugh N. Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(34).
Scullard P, Peacock C, Davies P. Googling children's health: reliability of medical advice on the internet. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95(8):580–2.
Smith AM. An examination of PubMed's ability to disambiguate subject queries and journal title queries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92(1):97–100.
Vieira DL, Dunn K. Peer training in expert searching: the observation effect. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(1):69–73.