Peer Review�of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS)

PRESS: 2015 Guideline Statement

McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016). PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 75, 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021

​

​

Process

PRESS is intended for use by librarians

Should happen early (before protocol registration)

Goal is to assess a strategy’s completeness and accuracy while improving its quality

When major revisions are required, a second�PRESS should be done

If possible, acknowledge peer-reviewer in final review

Requestor’s Role

Requestor provides important information

• Title of the review
• Research question, PICO (or similar)
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Primary database and platform
• Search filters or hedges
• Other useful notes or rationale

Reviewer’s Role

Reviewer provides a thorough evaluation by using the PRESS Checklist as a guide

PRESS - Recommendation #1

Translation of the research question

• Does the search strategy match the research question?
• Are the search concepts clear?
• Are there too many or too few PICO elements included?
• Are the search concepts too narrow or too broad?
• Does the search retrieve too many or too few records?
• Are unconventional or complex strategies explained?

Assess whether the research question has been correctly translated into search concepts.

PRESS - Recommendation #2

Boolean and proximity operators

• Are Boolean or proximity operators used correctly?
• Is the use of nesting with brackets appropriate?
• If NOT is used, will it result in any unintended exclusions?
• Could precision be improved by using proximity operators or phrase searching instead of AND?
• Is the width of proximity operators suitable?

Assess whether elements have been correctly combined with Boolean and/or proximity operators

PRESS - Recommendation #3

Subject headings

• Are the subject headings relevant?
• Are any relevant subject headings missing?
• Are any subject headings too broad or too narrow?
• Are subject headings exploded where necessary?
• Are subject headings and keywords used for each concept?
• Are subheadings missing?

Assess whether there is enough scope in the selection of subject headings to optimize recall

PRESS - Recommendation #4

Text word search (free text or keywords)

• Does the search include all spelling variants?
• Does the search include all synonyms or antonyms ?
• Does the search capture relevant truncation ?
• Is the truncation too broad or too narrow?
• Are acronyms or abbreviations used appropriately?

Assess whether search terms without adequate subject heading coverage are well represented by free-text terms, and whether additional synonyms or antonyms (opposites) and related terms are needed

PRESS - Recommendation #4

Text word search (free text or keywords)

• Are the keywords specific enough or too broad?
• Are too many or too few keywords used?
• Have the appropriate fields been searched?
• Should any long strings be broken into several shorter search statements?

PRESS - Recommendation #5

Spelling, syntax and line numbers

• Are there any spelling errors?
• Are there any errors in system syntax?
• Are there incorrect line combinations or orphan lines?

Assess correct use of spelling, correct use of syntax and correct search implementation

PRESS - Recommendation #6

Limits and filters

• Are all limits and filters used appropriately and are they relevant given the research question? For the database?
• Are any potentially helpful limits or filters missing?
• Are the limits or filters too broad or too narrow?
• Can any limits or filters be added or removed?
• Are sources cited for the filters used?

Assess whether the limits used (including filters) are appropriate and have been applied correctly

Common Errors or Issues

Improper use (or lack of) truncation

Missing synonyms or spelling variants

Missing subject headings

Errors in exploding subject headings

Boolean errors

Mistakes when combining sets

Finding Peer Reviewers

Personal network of colleagues

Other Institute attendees or instructors

ACRL’s Evidence Synthesis Methods Interest Group

Other subject-specific groups you may be part of

Using Templates

PRESS Checklist Form (.docx)

Local implementation at the University of Ottawa

• Blank template (Google Sheet)
• Completed example (Google Sheet)

ACTIVITY

​

CONTEXT

A Review of the Relationship Between Social Media Use and Online Prosocial Behavior Among Adolescents�https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579347

“[T]his paper aimed to conduct a systematic review on the relationship between SoMe use and OPB among adolescents.”

ACTIVITY

​

YOUR TASK

Using one or two of the six PRESS recommendations, evaluate the search strategy for APA PsycInfo (Ovid) developed for this review.

To help, here is a pared-down version of the PRESS Checklist that includes questions to guide your reflection.

Questions?