Searching the literature can take various forms, ranging from a quick scan of recent publications to a formal, systematic interrogation of all available data sources to establish the scientific consensus on a specific topic. In these days of online journal databases, the relative ease of conducting a search means that they often start informally with no thought-out search strategy or defined goal.A long list of articles can be generated almost instantaneously, but what did you miss and how long will it take to review the data? We all know that when done correctly, literature searching is invaluable for providing insights into research and developing evidence-based guidelines and recommendations. But do we always apply the descipline necessary to achieve our goals efficiently. Just what can go wrong?  Here’s a breakdown of potential issues:

Accessing Non-Peer-Reviewed or Predatory Journals

• Predatory journals can publish low-quality or even fraudulent research without proper peer review. Including such articles in your literature review can compromise the integrity of your analysis. These journals often have misleading titles and appear alongside legitimate sources, making it difficult to distinguish credible research from invalid work .
• Solution: Verify the credibility of sources by checking databases like PubMed, Web of Science, or using tools like Think. Check. Submit!

Information overload

• The vast volume of medical literature available online can be overwhelming. Filtering through large amounts of data without clear search strategies can result in missing relevant studies or including irrelevant ones.
• Solution: Use precise search terms, apply Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and set specific inclusion/exclusion criteria to manage the volume of results efficiently.

Incomplete or Unreliable Data

• Selective reporting of trial results or the absence of negative findings can skew literature reviews. Studies showing positive results are often more likely to be published than those showing no effect or negative outcomes, leading to publication bias.
• Solution: Use clinical trial registries like ClinicalTrials.gov to access unpublished or negative data and reduce bias.

Outdated Information

• Relying on older publications without checking for more recent research may lead to the use of outdated or superseded findings. In rapidly evolving fields like medicine, newer studies can significantly change clinical understanding.
• Solution: Use time filters to prioritise recent publications or review articles that summarise the latest developments in the field.

Lack of Context or Misinterpretation of Findings

• Without adequate background knowledge, it’s easy to misinterpret study findings or apply them out of context. For instance, small sample sizes or poorly designed trials can lead to unreliable conclusions.
• Solution: Critically evaluate each study’s methodology, sample size, and relevance to your research question. Check systematic reviews or meta-analyses that provide comprehensive context.

Search Engine Limitations

• Generic search engines like Google Scholar may not provide the most relevant or up-to-date medical literature and often fail to access subscription-based articles from reputable journals.
• Solution: Use dedicated academic databases (e.g., PubMed, Cochrane Library, or Embase) for more specialized and credible medical publications.

Inconsistent Terminology

• In medical research, terminology can vary (e.g., “myocardial infarction” vs. “heart attack”), making it easy to miss important studies due to inconsistent use of terms in the search.
• Solution: Use controlled vocabulary systems like MeSH terms in PubMed to ensure a comprehensive search across different variations of the same medical condition.

Paywalls and Limited Access

• Many high-quality journals require a subscription, meaning key studies may be behind paywalls and inaccessible without institutional access.
• Solution: Access free, full-text articles via platforms like PubMed Central, use interlibrary loan services, or explore open-access journals. Tools like Unpaywall can help locate free versions of paywalled articles.

Conflicts of Interest and Bias

• Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies or other stakeholders might carry potential bias, especially if they fail to disclose conflicts of interest.
• Solution: Always check for declarations of funding sources and conflicts of interest in medical publications to ensure a study’s credibility.

Not Using Multiple Sources

• Relying on a single database or search engine can result in a narrow or incomplete literature review.
• Solution: Use multiple databases (e.g., Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL) to ensure a broad and diverse set of studies is included.

References

1. An Insider’s Insight into Literature Searches. Niche Science & Technology Ltd., 2017