1 of 24

Writing The Methods Section

2 of 24

Methods Section Goals

  1. Reproducibility!
  2. Transparency about the steps taken to minimize bias and assure that the data set was complete.

2

3 of 24

I

3

4 of 24

Audience

Co-authors, peer-reviewers, and, ultimately, readers are unlikely to be librarians.

  • You may need to explain things that seem obvious.
  • Be prepared to refer to official guidelines like PRISMA-S

4

5 of 24

What to Include

What the Methods section includes will be guided by journal guidelines and word counts. Make sure search is fully documented somewhere (e.g., supplemental file or link to repository).

Some structured abstracts suggest including some of the same minimum information

5

6 of 24

A Good Methods Section Should Include:

  1. Standards or guidelines followed
  2. Electronic databases searched and gray literature search strategy
  3. Date the searches were run
  4. A call out to the full, translated search strategies
  5. An explanation of how study screening was carried out

6

7 of 24

Standards or Guidelines Followed

Example:

“The methodology and results of the review are presented here in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) (Moher et al. & the PRISMA Group, 2009) guidelines, to ensure transparent reporting”

Most commonly used standard is PRISMA, which now includes the PRISMA-S literature search reporting extension.

7

8 of 24

Electronic Databases Searched

Example:

“A systematic literature search was conducted by the third author, a reference librarian, of the following databases: PsycINFO (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), PILOTS—Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (ProQuest), Academic Search Premier (EBSCOHost), the Cochrane Library, the C2 Campbell Library, and Social Care Online for the years 2000–2018”

Include:

  • What databases were searched?
  • What platform was each database in?
  • Why were these databases selected?

8

9 of 24

Electronic Databases Searched

If there is more than one database available via a single interface, clearly specify the interface, the database(s) searched, and coverage dates for each database.

“In order to automatically de-duplicate results, EBSCOHost’s combined search function was used to simultaneously search ERIC (2005-2018), Education Source (2005-2018), and the Bibliography of Native North Americans (2005-2018).”

9

10 of 24

Electronic Databases Searched

If there is more than one database available via a single interface, clearly specify the interface, the database(s) searched, and coverage dates for each database

Example:

Web of Science (Clarivate)

Web of Science database segments: Science Citation Index 1990-2018; Social Science Citation Index 1990-2018, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index, 1990-2018.

10

11 of 24

Grey Literature & Other Sources

Was grey lit included? If so, what efforts were made to identify?

Was hand-searching / TOC searching included? By whom, and what sources?

Were experts in the field contacted?

Were citing/cited references searched? If so, how?

☆ At least one of these things should have happened

11

12 of 24

Search Strategy

“…search terms included…”

12

13 of 24

Search Strategy

“…search terms included…”

13

14 of 24

Search Strategy

What terms were searched?

  • Include any important or non-obvious decisions

Reporting detail in Methods section may vary

  • Complete strategy
  • Category / Facets of terms with reference to complete strategy/-ies elsewhere

14

15 of 24

Search Strategy

Example:

“Common keywords are summarized in Table 1; complete search strategies are available at https://hdl.handle.net/11299/202624.”

15

16 of 24

Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria

  • Study types
  • Intervention types
  • Language(s)
  • Geography
  • Dates

  • Contexts
  • Material types
  • Population

16

17 of 24

Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion example:

“Studies were included in the broader evidence synthesis if they met the following criteria: they had to be written in English and they should target community violence, witnessing and/or direct experience of community violence, including prevention (universal, selected, or indicated populations) or treatment programs. Randomized control trial/RCT evaluations of prevention and intervention programs and quasi-experimental studies were included. The target populations were children and adolescents who were directly or indirectly exposed to (i.e., were victims of or witnesses to community violence) community violence.”

17

18 of 24

Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria

Exclusion example:

“Excluded were descriptive studies, pre-intervention data, conference abstracts, book chapters, and research on exposure to political or war zone violence (soldiers or the military), family or domestic violence, partner or sibling violence, as well as community violence prevention or inter-vention studies that did not include a control group.”

18

19 of 24

What Was Involved

Example:

“A systematic literature search was conducted by the third author, a reference librarian, of the following databases:”

  • Who conducted the searches?
  • What are their qualifications?
  • Describe any search peer-review process.

19

20 of 24

Who Was Involved?

Other sample language:

Co-author (typically identified by initials)

‘A librarian with expertise in agriculture designed and ran the searches’ (should be named in the acknowledgements)

‘Search strategies were developed in consultation with a librarian … ‘

20

21 of 24

Supplemental Documentation

Exact, reproducible search strategy

  • At least one, but all is ideal
  • Don’t let the copy editor mess with it! [beware the quote marks]

All details on database segments, dates run, number of records found

If a hedge was used, what was the source? Was it validated? Was it modified?

21

22 of 24

How Was Data Managed

Example:

“Results of the database searches were imported into the Mendeley bibliographic management software and deduplicated before being exported to Rayyan QCRI (rayyan.qcri.org) software to facilitate title/abstract review.”

How were duplicates identified?

Did you use...

  • Bibliographic management software?
  • SR software (e.g., Rayyan, Covidence)?

22

23 of 24

Exercise

In groups, look at following article’s Methods section

Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030

Does methods section have what it needs for a reproducible search? Is it missing anything? If so, what?

23

24 of 24

Thanks!

Any questions?�Contact us at:

  • sysreview@umn.edu

24