Updating search strategies for literature reviews with OUR2D2: an open-source computer application

Abby M Lohr; Noah Van Gorden; D Jean McClelland; Ellen Dubinsky; Lynn B Gerald; Ada Wilkinson-Lee; Scott C Carvajal

doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.1105

Authors

Abby M Lohr University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7931-1308
Noah Van Gorden Arizona State University, School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9546-8957
D Jean McClelland University of Arizona, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3679-9435
Ellen Dubinsky University of Arizona Libraries http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2874-0284
Lynn B Gerald University of Arizona, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7279-0051
Ada Wilkinson-Lee University of Arizona, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Scott C Carvajal University of Arizona, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1105

Keywords:

literature search, open access, collaborative work

Abstract

Background: While writing a scoping review, we needed to update our search strategy. We wanted to capture articles generated by our additional search terms and articles published since our original search. Simultaneously, we strove to optimize project resources by not rescreening articles that had been captured in our original results.

Case presentation: In response, we created Open Update Re-run Deduplicate (OUR2D2), a computer application that allows the user to compare search results from a variety of library databases. OUR2D2 supports extensible markup language (XML) files from EndNote and comma-separated values (CSV) files using article titles for comparisons. We conducted unit tests to ensure appropriate functionality as well as accurate data extraction and analysis. We tested OUR2D2 by comparing original and updated search results from PubMed, Embase, Clarivate Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, and Lens and estimate that this application saved twenty-one hours of work during the screening process.

Conclusions: OUR2D2 could be useful for individuals seeking to update literature review strategies across fields without rescreening articles from previous searches. Because the OUR2D2 source code is freely available with a permissive license, we recommend this application for researchers conducting literature reviews who need to update their search results over time, want a powerful and flexible analysis framework, and may not have access to paid subscription tools.

Author Biographies

Abby M Lohr, University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health

Health Promotion Sciences Department, PhD Candidate

Noah Van Gorden, Arizona State University, School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering

MCS Student

D Jean McClelland, University of Arizona, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health

Health Promotion Sciences Department, Program Director for Community Based Health Information Resources

Ellen Dubinsky, University of Arizona Libraries

Office of Digital Innovation and Stewardship, Scholarly Communication Librarian

Lynn B Gerald, University of Arizona, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health

Health Promotion Sciences Department, Professor

Ada Wilkinson-Lee, University of Arizona, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Department of Mexican American Studies, Associate Professor

Scott C Carvajal, University of Arizona, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health

Health Promotion Sciences Department, Professor

References

Bullers K, Howard AM, Hanson A, Kearns WD, Orriola JJ, Polo RL, Sakmar KA. It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(2):198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.323.

Himmelstein DS, Powell K. Zenodo Repository [Internet]. 3 Feb 2016 [cited 11 Nov 2020]. http://doi.org/bb95.

Powell K. The waiting game. Nature. 2016;530(7589):148. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/530148a.

Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Schünemann HJ, Akl EA, Beyene J, Chang S, Churchill R, Dearness K, Guyatt G, Lefebvre C, Liles B, Marshall R, Martínez García L, Mavergames C, Nasser M, Qaseem A, Sampson M, Soares-Weiser K, Takwoingi Y, Thabane L, Trivella M, Tugwell P, Welsh E, Wilson EC. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354:i3507. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507.

Mavergames C, Elliott J. Living systematic reviews: towards real-time evidence for health-care decision-making [Internet]. [cited November 11 2020]. https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/us/toolkit/discuss-ebm/living-systematic-reviews-towards-real-time-evidence-for-health-care-decision-making/.

Lohr AM, Krause KC, McClelland DJ, Van Gorden N, Gerald LB, Del Casino V, Wilkinson-Lee A, Carvajal SC. The impact of school gardens on youth social and emotional learning: a scoping review. J Adventure Educ Outdoor Learn. 2020:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2020.1838935.

Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version) [Internet]. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.

Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

Felizardo KR, Nakagawa EY, MacDonell SG, Maldonado JC, eds. A visual analysis approach to update systematic reviews. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. 2014 May;4:1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601252.

Garcés L, Felizardo KR, Oliveira LBR, Nakagawa EY, eds. An experience report on update of systematic literature reviews. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. SEKE; 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18293/SEKE2017-078.

Goldberg S. Probability: an introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Courier Corporation; 1986. ISBN 0486652521.

Hamill P. Unit test frameworks: tools for high-quality software development. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media; 2004. ISBN 9780596552817.

Krekel H. pytest [Internet]. [cited 11 Nov 2020]. https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/.

Van Gorden N. vangorden/OUR2D2 Zenodo [Internet]. 23 June 2020 [cited 11 Nov 2020]. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3905250.

Singh V. Applying participatory action approach to integrating professional librarians into open source software communities. J Libr Inf Sci. 2020;52(2):541–548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000619836724.

Breeding M. Open source software: Innovation and disruption. Comput Libr. 2016;36(4):16–8.

DSpace [Internet]. Lyrasis [cited November 11 2020]. https://duraspace.org/dspace/.

Open Journal Systems [Internet]. Public Knowledge Project, Simon Fraser University Library [cited 11 Nov 2020]. https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/.

Folio [Internet]. The Open Library Foundation [cited 11 Nov 2020]. https://www.folio.org/.

Raymond E. The cathedral and the bazaar. Know Techn Pol. 1999;12(3):23–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-999-1026-0.

Gann LB, Pratt GF. Using library search service metrics to demonstrate library value and manage workload. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013;101(3):227–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.015.

Bramer W, Bain P. Updating search strategies for systematic reviews using EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105(3):285. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5195%2Fjmla.2017.183.

Wohlin C, Mendes E, Felizardo KR, Kalinowski M. Guidelines for the search strategy to update systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Inform Software Tech. 2020;127:106366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106366.