ABSTRACT
Evidence syntheses adhering to systematic literature searching techniques are a cornerstone of evidence-based health care. Beyond term-based searching in electronic databases, citation searching is a prevalent search technique to identify relevant sources of evidence. However, for decades, citation searching methodology and terminology has not been standardized. We performed an evidence-guided four-round Delphi consensus study with 27 international methodological experts in order to develop the Terminology, Application, and Reporting of Citation Searching (TARCiS) statement. TARCiS comprises ten specific recommendations on when and how to conduct and report citation searching in the context of systematic literature searches and four research priorities. We encourage systematic reviewers and information specialists to incorporate TARCiS into their standardized workflows.
Competing Interest Statement
All core and study group authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/: JS received support from Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; JS was funded by NIH, NSF, US Office of Research Integrity, United States Institute of Museum and Library Services, UIUC; SK was funded by Cancer Research UK (grant C49297/A27294); the current work was unrelated to this funding; JS received book royalities from Morgan & Claypool; CAH received payments to his institution for a citation searching workshop by University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland; JH received consulting fees by Medical University Brandenburg and payments for lecturing by University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Catholic University of Applied Sciences, and Netzwerk Fachbibliotheken Gesundheit; JG received payments for lecturing by York Health Economics Consortium; MJS received consulting fees at Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and National Academy of Medicine (formerly Institute of Medicine) and for lecturing and support for attending a meeting at Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; JS received consulting fees or honoraria from European Commission, Jump ARCHES, NSF, Medical Library Association; AW received payments to her institution for a citation analysis workshop run via York Health Economics Consortium; SK declares non-financial interests as a member of the UK EQUATOR Centre and a co-author of the PRISMA-S reporting guideline; PL is an employee of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; MR received payments by the Medical Library Association and declares non-financial interests as a member of the PhD program affiliated with BMJ Publishing Group; MJS has leadership role as Secretary of Ottawa Valley Health Library Association; JS received travel support by UIUC, contributes to CREC (Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern) Working Group, has non-financial associations with Crossref, COPE, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, the National Information Standards Organization; and the Center for Scientific Integrity (parent organization of Retraction Watch), and declares the National Information Standards Organization as a subawardee on her Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant G-2022-19409; AB is a co-convenor of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group and has authored methodological guidance on literature searching; all other authors have no competing interests to disclose.
Funding Statement
The authors did not receive a specific grant for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
We did not anticipate panelists to be vulnerable and, with regard to the Swiss Human Research Act, our research did not concern human diseases nor the structure and function of the human body. Thus, we did not apply for ethical approval. The landing page of each Delphi round contained information on the study aim, data management, and data security. Panelists' assessments were anonymous to other panelists but open to the study team. Panelists were aware that taking part indicated consent to participate. They did not receive an incentive for participation and could leave the process at any time. We prespecified this approach in our peer-reviewed study protocol: https://f1000research.com/articles/9-1386/v3
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The survey sheets and questionnaires that were used for this study are included in the supplementary content. Data generated and analyzed during this study (except sociodemographic information) is available on Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/y7kh3).
