Advice

Search strategy and evidence selection

Search strategy and evidence selection

Search strategy

The search strategy was designed to identify evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the Arrow OnControl powered bone biopsy system for bone marrow biopsies and bone marrow aspiration. It comprised 3 concepts: bone marrow biopsy/aspiration, needles and powered devices. Standalone search lines were added to this structure, designed to capture any records that may have been missed by the 3‑concept approach. These included a search by brand name, a focused key term search and a search for the manufacturer name. The strategy excluded non‑English language publications and animal studies using a standard algorithm. No additional filters for study design were applied. The results were limited to studies published from 2005 to current; this reflects the date when the OnControl system was CE‑marked.

The final strategy for MEDLINE (OvidSP) was peer‑reviewed by an independent information specialist.

The following databases were searched:

  • Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Wiley)

  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library, Wiley)

  • Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (Cochrane Library, Wiley)

  • Embase (Ovid SP)

  • Health Technology Assessment Database (Cochrane Library, Wiley)

  • MEDLINE and MEDLINE in Process (Ovid SP)

  • NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Cochrane Library, Wiley)

  • PubMed.

Evidence selection

A total of 723 records were retrieved from the literature search. After de‑duplication, 402 records remained. Two reviewers independently sifted these records against the exclusion criteria at title and abstract. By the end of this process the reviewers were in agreement over the papers that should be excluded. In total, 395 papers were removed, based on the following exclusion criteria:

  • articles of poor relevance against the search terms

  • publication types that are out of the project scope

  • non‑English language studies

  • conference abstracts

  • review protocols

  • articles in which neither the abstract nor the full text is freely available online.

Full records were retrieved for the remaining 7 papers, and a second sift was done. Papers were excluded at this stage if they were not randomised or did not address the population, intervention, comparator and outcomes needed to inform the review. The second sift was also done independently by 2 reviewers. Following the second sift, 1 paper was excluded (Cohen et al. 2008). This study was a non‑randomised, single‑arm observational study and so had no comparative information. The remaining 6 papers comprised 1 systematic review and meta‑analysis and 5 randomised control trials. Synthesised evidence from the systematic review was used when appropriate, with evidence not reported in the review described on a study‑by‑study basis.