[CANMEDLIB] Web of Science for Knowledge Synthesis

[Farhad Shokraneh]

Hi everyone,

I've written about this before. I hope you find it useful:
Do we need to search Web of Science citation indexes for systematic reviews?
https://farhadinfo.medium.com/do-we-need-to-search-web-of-science-citation-indices-for-systematic-reviews-c6dabf354578

Kind regards,
Farhad

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 1:02 AM Zahra Premji via CANMEDLIB <
canmedlib at chlaabsc.koumbit.org> wrote:

> Excellent discussion on this topic. I’m surprised to hear that a librarian
> would explicitly say not to use the big citation databases.
>
>
>
> In my personal experience so far, I have found unique items in Web of
> Science core collection that weren’t in the other health-specific
> databases. I figured this out at the outset from the seed/known paper
> analysis for that review. I look forward to seeing the results of Rachel’s
> sub-study. I also hope more people start doing search summary tables (
> https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/809), as that would also
> highlight the unique contributions to a review from each individual search
> source.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zahra
>
> ---
>
> *Zahra Premji*, PhD MLIS
>
> Health Research Librarian
>
> Advanced Research Services, University of Victoria Libraries
> <https://www.uvic.ca/library/>
>
> https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6899-0528
>
> Pronouns: she/her
>
>
>
> Book an appointment <https://libcal.uvic.ca/appointments/zahra>
>
>
>
> *I acknowledge and respect the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples on whose traditional
> territory the University of Victoria stands, and the Songhees, Esquimalt
> and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples whose historical relationships with the land continue
> to this day.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* CANMEDLIB <canmedlib-bounces at chlaabsc.koumbit.org> *On Behalf Of *Sandra
> McKeown via CANMEDLIB
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2023 3:04 PM
> *To:* canmedlib at chlaabsc.koumbit.org; eleni.philippopoulos at sinaihealth.ca
> *Subject:* Re: [CANMEDLIB] Web of Science for Knowledge Synthesis
>
>
>
> Hi Eleni,
>
>
>
> I remember learning at some point that citation databases like Web of
> Science and Scopus should complement searches in bibliographic databases,
> for cited reference searching of eligible studies, for example.
>
>
>
> However, translating/replicating bibliographic database searches in
> citation databases like Web of Science and/or Scopus might also be valuable
> if the researchers will be including conference abstracts/papers in their
> synthesis.
>
>
>
> While Embase has 3.6 million conference abstracts from 11,500+ conferences
> <https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/embase-biomedical-research/coverage-and-content>
> (dating back to 2010 as far as I can tell from the Excel spreadsheet), the
> Conference Proceedings Citation Index, which is part of the Web of Science
> Core Collection, contains over 227,000 conference proceedings, with 70
> million cited references dating back from 1990 to present
> <https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/webofscience-cpci/>.
>
>
>
> There are research papers available that discuss optimal database
> combinations for evidence syntheses such as:
>
> Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database
> combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective
> exploratory study. Systematic reviews. 2017 Dec;6:1-2.
>
>
>
> And the following is an excerpt from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic
> Reviews of Interventions (4.3.1.1 Introduction to bibliographic databases
> ):
>
> “The three bibliographic databases generally considered to be the most
> important sources to search for reports of trials are CENTRAL (Noel-Storr
> et al 2020
> <https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04#_ENREF_122>),
> MEDLINE (Halladay et al 2015
> <https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04#_ENREF_74>, Sampson
> et al 2016
> <https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04#_ENREF_151>)
> and Embase (Woods and Trewheellar 1998
> <https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04#_ENREF_177>, Sampson
> et al 2003
> <https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04#_ENREF_146>, Bai
> et al 2007
> <https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04#_ENREF_6>).
> These databases are described in more detail in Sections 4.3.1.2
> <https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04#_Ref531775847>
>  and 4.3.1.3
> <https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04#_Ref531775860> and
> in the online Technical Supplement
> <https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04-technical-supplement-searching-and-selecting-studies>.
> For Cochrane Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (if access to Embase is
> available to the review team) should be searched.”
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
> Sandra McKeown, BSc, MLIS | Health Sciences Librarian | Queen's
> University Library <http://library.queensu.ca/>
>
> 613-533-6000 x 75284 | sandra.mckeown at queensu.ca |
> https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2728-6702
>
> <http://library.queensu.ca/>
>
> Queen’s is situated on traditional Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee
> territory. We are grateful to be able to be live, learn and play on these
> lands.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* CANMEDLIB <canmedlib-bounces at chlaabsc.koumbit.org> *On Behalf Of *Couban,
> Rachel via CANMEDLIB
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2023 3:53 PM
> *To:* Ian Gordon <igordon at brocku.ca>; canmedlib at chlaabsc.koumbit.org;
> Philippopoulos, Eleni <Eleni.Philippopoulos at sinaihealth.ca>; Amanda
> Ross-White <amanda.ross-white at queensu.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [CANMEDLIB] Ian's reply re: Web of Science for Knowledge
> Synthesis
>
>
>
> Thanks Amanda, good points! I'm running a search in Web of Science right
> now for a review and so far the results are comparable to MEDLINE. I
> wouldn't be so cheerful about doing it if I didn't have the free SR
> Accelerator Deduplicator tool as part of my workflow. Part of Wichor
> Bramer's research looked at which databases were searched in SRs, and he
> came out in favour of using Web of Science, but I think his argument was
> based on their established practice of always using it. So for one big
> review I'm working on we proposed a sub-study to test whether Web of
> Science captured anything important to the review (that would not otherwise
> have been captured.) Eventually we hope to have some findings about whether
> or not it was worth it to search Web of Science (but I've just been asked
> to update the search so we're still a while away from answering our
> sub-study question!)
>
> Another thing I rely on for Web of Science searches is this great filter
> that NOTs out a lot of animal terms, that's the downside of using an
> interdisciplinary database for a health topic (lots of animal studies).
>
> Thanks Eleni for bringing this forward and to Ian for contributing to the
> discussion.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
> Rachel Couban
>
>
>
> Tjosvold, L. Randomized Controlled Trials / Controlled Clinical Trials: A
> Cut and Paste Search Strategy adapted from the Cochrane ENT Group for Web
> of Science. Adapted from “RCT Filters used by Cochrane ENT. Oxford (UK):
> Cochrane ENT Group; 2018.” John W. Scott Health Sciences Library,
> University of Alberta. Rev. January 14, 2021. Available from:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aEVsIaeXVZY8_BND-sUB_19sTTMccgoxNUdznH54ilQ/edit#
> <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1aEVsIaeXVZY8_BND-sUB_19sTTMccgoxNUdznH54ilQ%2Fedit%23&data=05%7C01%7Csandra.mckeown%40queensu.ca%7C490b9fdf4c404d88274308db1f4df96b%7Cd61ecb3b38b142d582c4efb2838b925c%7C1%7C0%7C638138191982885454%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=t54b0opv10dLf2sAGmsHynBuWC%2FNaq28kzEs9VWjdP4%3D&reserved=0>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* CANMEDLIB <canmedlib-bounces at chlaabsc.koumbit.org> on behalf of
> Amanda Ross-White via CANMEDLIB <canmedlib at chlaabsc.koumbit.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2023 3:22 PM
> *To:* Ian Gordon <igordon at brocku.ca>; canmedlib at chlaabsc.koumbit.org <
> canmedlib at chlaabsc.koumbit.org>; Philippopoulos, Eleni <
> Eleni.Philippopoulos at sinaihealth.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [CANMEDLIB] Ian's reply re: Web of Science for Knowledge
> Synthesis
>
>
>
> I never like giving hard and fast rules! WoS or Scopus can be too broad
> and include a lot of noise, or it can include exactly what you need.
>
>
>
> The comment that something is ‘too interdisciplinary’ makes sense if doing
> a review where the terms might have a lot of different meanings depending
> on your discipline. Think of something like ‘stress’ which as we know means
> something very different to the orthopedic surgeon (stress fracture) than
> it does to the psychiatrist. But it has a whole other meaning entirely to
> the materials engineers!
>
>
>
> On the other hand, a review on a pharmaceutical, which has a carefully
> selected chemical name, is not likely to retrieve much in the way of false
> hits. Escitalopram is escitalopram, whether you’re a chemist or a nurse and
> so searching for the term in WoS/Scopus is not likely to add millions of
> false hits. You probably won’t find anything authored by Dr. Escitalopram.
>
>
>
> Review searching is always a balance between that precision and recall,
> and it is knowing what is found in the various databases, as well as the
> terms to use and when to use one and not the other which is the human
> expertise we provide!
>
>
>
> Amanda
>
>
>
> *From:* CANMEDLIB <canmedlib-bounces at chlaabsc.koumbit.org> *On Behalf Of *Ian
> Gordon via CANMEDLIB
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2023 3:07 PM
> *To:* canmedlib at chlaabsc.koumbit.org; Philippopoulos, Eleni <
> Eleni.Philippopoulos at sinaihealth.ca>
> *Subject:* [CANMEDLIB] Ian's reply re: Web of Science for Knowledge
> Synthesis
>
>
>
> Eleni,
>
>
>
> Can't help but comment, ES for health sciences should always consider the
> big 5/6 databases,
>
>
>
> MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and (Web of Science Core Collection
> and/or Scopus) to round our the field noting there are substitutes inserted
> along the way.
>
>
>
> It makes me wonder why someone hasn't done a rapid review of databases
> searched for all type of reviews in the past 5-10 years to note trends,
> patterns and biases in this phase of evidence synthesis work?
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> *Ian Gordon,* he/him
>
> https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1128-3301
> <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0003-1128-3301&data=05%7C01%7Csandra.mckeown%40queensu.ca%7C490b9fdf4c404d88274308db1f4df96b%7Cd61ecb3b38b142d582c4efb2838b925c%7C1%7C0%7C638138191982885454%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hn2HuhnGWOIQHvmI6YP82vmgxIcGg4zx%2FaAXHtLg81I%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> Brock University | James A. Gibson Library
> T  905 688 5550  x3727  |  igordon at brocku.ca
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* CANMEDLIB <canmedlib-bounces at chlaabsc.koumbit.org> on behalf of
> Philippopoulos, Eleni via CANMEDLIB <canmedlib at chlaabsc.koumbit.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2023 2:59 PM
> *To:* canmedlib at chlaabsc.koumbit.org <canmedlib at chlaabsc.koumbit.org>
> *Subject:* [CANMEDLIB] Web of Science for Knowledge Synthesis
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I was helping a researcher yesterday who said they recently took a an
> extensive knowledge synthesis workshop where the librarian told the class
> that Web of Science and Scopus should never be searched because they are
> “too interdisciplinary”
>
>
>
> I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts on the subject are.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your input!
>
> Eleni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Eleni Philippopoulos, MISt *(she/her)
> Information Specialist, Patient Education, Sidney Liswood Health Science
> Library
> *T* 416-586-4800 x 6681
> eleni.philippopoulos at sinaihealth.ca
> Mount Sinai Hospital, 600 University Avenue, Suite 18-234, Toronto, ON
> M5G 1X5
> Hear how I say my name
> <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnamedrop.io%2Feleniphilippopoulos&data=05%7C01%7Csandra.mckeown%40queensu.ca%7C490b9fdf4c404d88274308db1f4df96b%7Cd61ecb3b38b142d582c4efb2838b925c%7C1%7C0%7C638138191982885454%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Lqs2YDrznqrr75JxoJ%2BQ%2F73pC6ttBegwdGttQ2eqMdk%3D&reserved=0>
>
> [image: SH-MSH-JWLHC_RGB_300]
>
> [image: lines_footer]
>
> *A patient care, teaching and research centre affiliated with University
> of Toronto*.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the
> sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
> you are strictly prohibited from reviewing, copying or disclosing this
> e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately
> notify the sender and delete all copies.
> _______________________________________________
> CANMEDLIB mailing list
> CANMEDLIB at chlaabsc.koumbit.org
>
> https://lists.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/canmedlib-chlaabsc.koumbit.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/canmedlib-chlaabsc.koumbit.org/attachments/20230308/36e3c890/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3205 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/canmedlib-chlaabsc.koumbit.org/attachments/20230308/36e3c890/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/canmedlib-chlaabsc.koumbit.org/attachments/20230308/36e3c890/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 661 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/canmedlib-chlaabsc.koumbit.org/attachments/20230308/36e3c890/attachment-0005.png>