Systematic searches of published literature are a vital component of systematic reviews. When search strings are not “sensitive,” they may miss many relevant studies limiting, or even biasing, the range of evidence available for synthesis. Concerningly, conducting and reporting evaluations (validations) of the sensitivity of the used search strings is rare, according to our survey of published systematic reviews and protocols. Potential reasons may involve a lack of familiarity or inaccessibility of complex sensitivity evaluation approaches. We first clarify the main concepts and principles of search string evaluation. We then present a simple procedure for estimating a relative recall of a search string. It is based on a pre-defined set of “benchmark” publications. The relative recall, that is, the sensitivity of the search string, is the retrieval overlap between the evaluated search string and a search string that captures only the benchmark publications. If there is little overlap (i.e., low recall or sensitivity), the evaluated search string should be improved to ensure that most of the relevant literature can be captured. The presented benchmarking approach can be applied to one or more online databases or search platforms. It is illustrated by five accessible, hands-on tutorials for commonly used online literature sources. Overall, our work provides an assessment of the current state of search string evaluations in published systematic reviews and protocols. It also paves the way to improve evaluation and reporting practices to make evidence synthesis more transparent and robust.

Data visualization is crucial for effectively communicating knowledge in meta-analysis. However, existing visualization methods in meta-analysis have predominantly focused on quantitative aspects, such as forest plots and funnel plots, thereby neglecting qualitative information that is equally important for end-users in science, policy, and practice. We introduce a framework consisting of a series of visualization toolkits designed to enrich meta-analyses by borrowing approaches from other research synthesis methods, including systematic evidence mapping (scoping reviews), bibliometrics (bibliometric analysis), and alternative impact metric analysis. These “enrichment” toolkits aim to facilitate the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative evidence, along with the assessment of the academic and nonacademic influences of the meta-analytic evidence base. While the meta-analysis yields quantitative insights, the enrichment analyses, and visualizations provide user-friendly summaries of qualitative information on the evidence base. For example, a systematic evidence map can visualize study characteristics, unraveling knowledge gaps and methodological differences. Bibliometric analysis offers a visual assessment of the nonindependent evidence, such as hyper-dominant authors and countries, and funding sources, potentially informing the risk of bias. Alternative impact metric analysis employs alternative metrics to gauge societal influence and research translation (e.g., policy and patent citations) of studies in the meta-analysis. We provide a dedicated webpage showcasing sample visualizations and providing step-by-step implementation in open-source software R (https://yefeng0920.github.io/MA_Map_Bib/). Additionally, we offer a guide on leveraging three commercially free large language models (LLMs) to help adapt the sample script, enabling users with less R coding experience to visualize their own meta-analytic evidence base.

While the Institute of Education Science’s ERIC is often recommended for comprehensive literature searching in the field of education, there are several other specialized education databases to discover education literature. This study investigates journal coverage overlaps between four specialized education databases: Education Source (EBSCO), Education Database (ProQuest), ERIC (Institute of Education Sciences), and Educator’s Reference Complete (Gale). Out of a total of 4,695 unique journals analyzed, there are 2,831 journals uniquely covered by only one database, as well as many journals covered by only two or three databases. Findings show that evidence synthesis projects and literature reviews benefit from the careful selection of multiple specialized education databases and that ERIC is insufficient as the primary education database for comprehensive searching in the field.

Conventional meta-analyses (both fixed and random effects) of correlations are biased due to the mechanical relationship between the estimated correlation and its standard error. Simulations that are closely calibrated to match actual research conditions widely seen across correlational studies in psychology corroborate these biases and suggest two solutions: UWLS+3 and HS. UWLS+3 is a simple inverse-variance weighted average (the unrestricted weighted least squares) that adjusts the degrees of freedom and thereby reduces small-sample bias to scientific negligibility. UWLS+3 as well as the Hunter and Schmidt approach (HS) are less biased than conventional random-effects estimates of correlations and Fisher’s z, whether or not there is publication selection bias. However, publication selection bias remains a ubiquitous source of bias and false-positive findings. Despite the relationship between the estimated correlation and its standard error in the absence of selective reporting, the precision-effect test/precision-effect estimate with standard error (PET-PEESE) nearly eradicates publication selection bias. Surprisingly, PET-PEESE keeps the rate of false positives (i.e., type I errors) within their nominal levels under the typical conditions widely seen across psychological research whether there is publication selection bias, or not.

The current meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) techniques cannot properly deal with cases where there are multiple effect sizes available for the same relationship from the same study. Existing applications either treat these effect sizes as independent, randomly select one effect size amongst many, or create an average effect size. None of these approaches deal with the inherent dependency in effect sizes, and either leads to biased estimates or loss of information and power. An alternative technique is to use univariate three-level modeling in the two-stage approach to model these dependencies. These different strategies for dealing with dependent effect sizes in the context of MASEM have not been previously compared in a simulation study. This study aims to compare the performance of these strategies across different conditions; varying the number of studies, the number of dependent effect sizes within studies, the correlation between the dependent effect sizes, the magnitude of the path coefficient, and the between-studies variance. We examine the relative bias in parameter estimates and standard errors, coverage proportions of confidence intervals, as well as mean standard error and power as measures of efficiency. The results suggest that there is not one method that performs well across all these criteria, pointing to the need for better methods.

In small meta-analyses (e.g., up to 20 studies), the best-performing frequentist methods can yield very wide confidence intervals for the meta-analytic mean, as well as biased and imprecise estimates of the heterogeneity. We investigate the frequentist performance of alternative Bayesian methods that use the invariant Jeffreys prior. This prior has the usual Bayesian motivation, but also has a purely frequentist motivation: the resulting posterior modes correspond to the established Firth bias correction of the maximum likelihood estimator. We consider two forms of the Jeffreys prior for random-effects meta-analysis: the previously established “Jeffreys1” prior treats the heterogeneity as a nuisance parameter, whereas the “Jeffreys2” prior treats both the mean and the heterogeneity as estimands of interest. In a large simulation study, we assess the performance of both Jeffreys priors, considering different types of Bayesian estimates and intervals. We assess point and interval estimation for both the mean and the heterogeneity parameters, comparing to the best-performing frequentist methods. For small meta-analyses of binary outcomes, the Jeffreys2 prior may offer advantages over standard frequentist methods for point and interval estimation of the mean parameter. In these cases, Jeffreys2 can substantially improve efficiency while more often showing nominal frequentist coverage. However, for small meta-analyses of continuous outcomes, standard frequentist methods seem to remain the best choices. The best-performing method for estimating the heterogeneity varied according to the heterogeneity itself. Röver & Friede’s R package bayesmeta implements both Jeffreys priors. We also generalize the Jeffreys2 prior to the case of meta-regression.

Understanding causality is crucial for social scientific research to develop strong theories and inform practice. However, explicit discussion of causality is often lacking in social science literature due to ambiguous causal language. This paper introduces a text mining model fine-tuned to extract causal sentences from full-text social science papers. A dataset of 529 causal and 529 non-causal sentences manually annotated from the Cooperation Databank (CoDa) was curated to train and evaluate the model. Several pre-trained language models (BERT, SciBERT, RoBERTa, LLAMA, and Mistral) were fine-tuned on this dataset and general-purpose causality datasets. Model performance was evaluated on held-out social science and general-purpose test sets. Results showed that fine-tuning transformer models on the social science dataset significantly improved causal sentence extraction, even with limited data, compared to the models fine-tuned only on the general-purpose data. Results indicate the importance of domain-specific fine-tuning and data for accurately capturing causal language in academic writing. This automated causal sentence extraction method enables comprehensive, large-scale analysis of causal claims across the social sciences. By systematically cataloging existing causal statements, this work lays the foundation for further research to uncover the mechanisms underlying social phenomena, inform theory development, and strengthen the methodological rigor of the field.

Mapping reviews (MRs) are crucial for identifying research gaps and enhancing evidence utilization. Despite their increasing use in health and social sciences, inconsistencies persist in both their conceptualization and reporting. This study aims to clarify the conceptual framework and gather reporting items from existing guidance and methodological studies. A comprehensive search was conducted across nine databases and 11 institutional websites, including documents up to January 2024. A total of 68 documents were included, addressing 24 MR terms and 55 definitions, with 39 documents discussing distinctions and overlaps among these terms. From the documents included, 28 reporting items were identified, covering all the steps of the process. Seven documents mentioned reporting on the title, four on the abstract, and 14 on the background. Ten methods-related items appeared in 56 documents, with the median number of documents supporting each item being 34 (interquartile range [IQR]: 27, 39). Four results-related items were mentioned in 18 documents (median: 14.5, IQR: 11.5, 16), and four discussion-related items appeared in 25 documents (median: 5.5, IQR: 3, 13). There was very little guidance about reporting conclusions, acknowledgments, author contributions, declarations of interest, and funding sources. This study proposes a draft 28-item reporting checklist for MRs and has identified terminologies and concepts used to describe MRs. These findings will first be used to inform a Delphi consensus process to develop reporting guidelines for MRs. Additionally, the checklist and definitions could be used to guide researchers in reporting high-quality MRs.

The number of published systematic reviews has increased over the last years, with a non-negligible proportion displaying methodological concerns. We aimed to develop and evaluate a tool to assess the reported methodological quality of medical systematic reviews. The developed tool (ReMarQ) consists of 26 dichotomous items. We applied an item response theory model to assess the difficulty and discrimination of the items and decision tree models to identify those items more capable of identifying systematic reviews with higher reported methodological quality. ReMarQ was applied to a representative sample of medical systematic reviews (excluding those published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) to describe their methodological quality and identify associated factors. We assessed 400 systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2020, of which 196 (49.0%) included meta-analysis. The most discriminative items were (i) conducting a risk of bias assessment, (ii) having a published protocol and (iii) reporting methods for solving disagreements. More recent systematic reviews (adjusted yearly RR=1.03; 95%CI=1.02 −1.04, p<0.001) and those with meta-analysis (adjusted RR=1.34; 95%CI=1.25 −1.43, p<0.001) were associated with higher reported methodological quality. Such an association was not observed with the journal impact factor. The items most frequently fulfilled were (i) reporting search dates, (ii) reporting bibliographic sources and (iii) searching multiple electronic bibliographic databases. ReMarQ, consisting of dichotomous items and whose application does not require subject content expertise, may be important (i) in supporting an efficient quality assessment of systematic reviews and (ii) as the basis of automated processes to support that assessment.

Systematic reviews play important roles but manual efforts can be time-consuming given a growing literature. There is a need to use and evaluate automated strategies to accelerate systematic reviews. Here, we comprehensively tested machine learning (ML) models from classical and deep learning model families. We also assessed the performance of prompt engineering via few-shot learning of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 large language models (LLMs). We further attempted to understand when ML models can help automate screening. These ML models were applied to actual datasets of systematic reviews in education. Results showed that the performance of classical and deep ML models varied widely across datasets, ranging from 1.2 to 75.6% of work saved at 95% recall. LLM prompt engineering produced similarly wide performance variation. We searched for various indicators of whether and how ML screening can help. We discovered that the separability of clusters of relevant versus irrelevant articles in high-dimensional embedding space can strongly predict whether ML screening can help (overall R = 0.81). This simple and generalizable heuristic applied well across datasets and different ML model families. In conclusion, ML screening performance varies tremendously, but researchers and software developers can consider using our cluster separability heuristic in various ways in an ML-assisted screening pipeline.

Bibliographic aggregators like OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar offer scope for automated citation searching within systematic review production, promising increased efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of automated citation searching compared to standard search strategies and examine factors that influence performance. Automated citation searching was simulated on 27 systematic reviews across the OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar databases, across three study areas (health, environmental management and social policy). Performance, measured by recall (proportion of relevant articles identified), precision (proportion of relevant articles identified from all articles identified), and F1–F3 scores (weighted average of recall and precision), was compared to the performance of search strategies originally employed by each systematic review. The associations between systematic review study area, number of included articles, number of seed articles, seed article type, study type inclusion criteria, API choice, and performance was analyzed. Automated citation searching outperformed the reference standard in terms of precision (p < 0.05) and F1 score (p < 0.05) but failed to outperform in terms of recall (p < 0.05) and F3 score (p < 0.05). Study area influenced the performance of automated citation searching, with performance being higher within the field of environmental management compared to social policy. Automated citation searching is best used as a supplementary search strategy in systematic review production where recall is more important that precision, due to inferior recall and F3 score. However, observed outperformance in terms of F1 score and precision suggests that automated citation searching could be helpful in contexts where precision is as important as recall.