How to construct a robust search strategy for systematic reviews? a methodological proposal followed by a tutorial

How to construct a robust search strategy for systematic reviews? a methodological proposal followed by a tutorial | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article How to construct a robust search strategy for systematic reviews? a methodological proposal followed by a tutorial Renan Cassiano Ratis, Giovanna Alcalde Torres, Daniel Rodrigo Serbena, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6762423/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: A methodological issue has been identified in systematic reviews: the lack of standardization in search query formulation and the difficulty in developing them, which compromises evidence quality by yielding suboptimal results. Methods: To analyze search queries and propose a standardized model for their development, we evaluated a total of 30 open-access systematic reviews on primary health care selected from PubMed, along with 30 studies covering topics related to social sciences obtained from Campbell Collaboration publications. To analyze database main syntaxes and propose a standardized model, we examined the functionalities of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus and built a tutorial for the creation of queries aiming for an optimal result range. For the model, we propose the use of essential descriptors according to the research question, synonyms registered in the MeSH platform and syntax adaptations for the cited databases. We applied our model of multiple search queries (n=19) being one published, six ongoing, nine classroom-developed and three reformulated systematic reviews. Results: In systematic reviews on primary health care, 10/30 report the research query in the main text, the same proportion for systematic reviews on topics related to social sciences. However, only three of 30 search queries in primary health care reviews were easily extracted and re-executed. Among the main functionalities of the analyzed databases, [MeSH] was identified as a key feature in PubMed and /exp in Embase, with comma usage being a major cause of command failures. The hypothetical range for optimal results suggests that an ideal mean after converting the number of returned publications to a maximum normalization from 0 to 1 is between 0.43 and 0.81. The developed tutorial includes various examples and images to enhance understanding. Conclusions: The findings indicate a lack of reproducibility in search query formulation and standardization, highlighting a gap in the application of the scientific method. To address this issue, our standardized development model is accompanied by a didactic tutorial to ensure methodological quality for building a well-structured search query. The application of a reproducible method for systematic reviews ensures methodological quality and is essential for ensuring evidence reliability, preventing suboptimal outcomes in clinical decision-making. Search strategy Evidence quality Information retrieval Database search commands Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 BACKGROUND Systematic reviews (SRs), with or without meta-analyses, are fundamental scientific tools for data synthesis and the construction of clinical guidelines that orient decision-making in medical practice (Briner & Denier, 2012). SRs are at the top of the evidence-based pyramid. They also serve as important tools in the teaching–learning process, for curriculum integration and in-depth knowledge acquisition (Perry & Hammond, 2002 ; Staples & Niasi, 2007; Briner & Denyer, 2012 ; Muhad et al., 2016). Although the primary focus of these studies is clinical practice, they also play a role in hypothesis formulation, such as for chemical and biochemical interactions. The method for conducting systematic reviews is highly rigorous, with the PRISMA statement being the most commonly used guideline (Page, 2021). The strict methodological framework for conducting systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, aims to ensure clear and transparent methodological reproducibility (Page, 2021). The PRISMA statement defines objectives and provides clear steps for developing a systematic review, establishing criteria such as the need for registering the research protocol in dedicated platforms, including PROSPERO, the Cochrane Database, and Campbell Systematic Reviews (Kleinstäuber, 1996; Campbell Collaboration, 2017 ; Schiavo, 2019). It also highlights the requirement for the PICO strategy, two independent reviewers to complete the article selection process, and an assessment of the quality of reported evidence (Ericksen, 2018; Page, 2021). Among the key steps in conducting an SR, a literature search based on a well-structured search query is one of the initial phases. This step aims to retrieve the maximum number of relevant articles aligned with the PICO strategy and eligible for inclusion (Ericksen, 2018). Although PRISMA defines criteria for constructing and developing search strategies and several studies provide additional guidance (McGowan et al., 2016 ), a lack of transparency is observed at this stage. Many published systematic reviews report only the descriptors used in the searches without clearly outlining the construction of the search query. In some cases, search queries are developed in a non standardized manner, potentially impacting the final results. The lack of standardization in the construction of search commands directly impacts the reliability of systematic reviews, as it can result in the inclusion of irrelevant studies or the exclusion of crucial evidence. This problem compromises the reproducibility of findings and can lead to biased interpretations of the available data, affecting the robustness of the conclusions drawn. In the clinical context, where systematic reviews play an essential role in the formulation of guidelines and evidence-based decision-making, inconsistency in literature searches can negatively influence medical practice. Errors in the retrieval of studies can result in suboptimal recommendations, directly impacting patient safety and the effectiveness of treatments. METHODOLOGY Objectives We aimed to evaluate the ease of term extraction and reproducibility of search strategies in previously published systematic reviews, ongoing, classroom developed and reformuled, as well as to propose a guideline and tutorial for building search strategies that can be reproduced without difficulty. Analyzing the methodological replicability of systematic reviews The 30 most recent open access systematic reviews indexed in PubMed (see below) focusing on primary medicine and 30 systematic reviews from social sciences and other fields (education, agriculture and others) through Campbell Reviews were selected. We chose this number of systematic reviews (n = 30), because it is the recommended sample size for data normality according to the Central Limit Theorem (Kwak & Kim, 2017 ). The search strategy in PubMed ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ ) involved the use of the query term "Systematic Review and Meta-analysis" within the time frame (Custom range) from November 1 to November 30, 2024, with the filter "Free full text." To identify studies in non primary health fields, studies were selected one by one until they reached a total of 30, using the Campbell Collaboration website ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/index/18911803 ) , with searches conducted on the final days of November. The extracted data from these reviews included the PMID, DOI, first author, title, databases used, search strategies and their execution date, whether the search strategy was included in the supplementary material or the main text, and search strategy results (only data from the four primary databases, which are the focus of this study, were extracted). These data were analyzed descriptively. To be included in the search command analysis stage of this study, a systematic review needed to contain a described search command for at least two of the four previously selected databases, with the command formatted in a free, easily understandable, and standardized manner. The exclusion criterion was not being open access.No search queries were extracted from systematic reviews of areas related to social sciences due to the predominance of other databases and the creation of search queries by automated platforms. Model for creating a robust search command To develop an effective search strategy, we analyzed the functionality of four popular databases—PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science—focusing on Boolean operators, descriptors, synonyms, and key search commands. On the basis of the collected data, the PRISMA protocol (Page et al., 2021 ), and the PRESS guidelines (McGowan et al., 2016 ), we propose a standardized approach for constructing and reporting search strategies in a clear, robust, and methodologically replicable manner. The model for creating a robust search command consists of the use of synonyms identified among the list of synonymous terms registered by MeSH, formatting them according to the target database (PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science) and using sets of terms according to the importance they have in the research question (see the tutorial). Analysis of the new proposed model and discovery of the ideal range of results found in the databases The search strategies for reviews that contained the necessary data were reformulated on the basis of the model proposed in this study. We subsequently executed both the original and the reformulated search strategies and compared the retrieved results. We investigated whether an optimal range of search results exists by analyzing the outcomes of the following (See additional file 1 to check all the search commands and the returns): Search commands developed during the research methodology course taught by Professor JSB (a common course in science programs), Search commands from other systematic reviews either in progress or previously published by the authors of this article, Reformulated search commands from the reviews analyzed in this study. Statistical analysis The analysis comparing the search command results from the included reviews was conducted via effect size estimation, which compared the original commands before reformulation with those following the proposed model. This was done via Cohen’s d, where effect sizes are classified as small (~ 0.2), moderate (~ 0.5), or large (~ 0.8+) (Cohen, 1992 ; McHugh, 2013 ). To mitigate time-related bias in the analyses (i.e., newly published studies after the original search execution by the review authors), both the reported search commands and the standardized commands were re-executed between January 27 and 31, 2025. To determine the optimal range of search results, data normalization was performed via 0-to-1 scaling (where the highest value in the dataset was set to 1, and all other values were divided by this maximum). On this basis, the hypothetical optimal result range was calculated as a standard deviation of + 1 (Sinsomboonthong, 2022 ; De Amorim, et al, 2023 ). For effect size calculations (Cohen’s d) and data normalization with the optimal result range, R software was used (See additional file 2). Tutorial construction For the development of the tutorial, PubMed was used as the central platform to create a baseline search command, which was then adapted for Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science by modifying the syntax accordingly. The tutorial includes an example from a previously conducted and published systematic review by the researchers of this study, as well as search commands from ongoing reviews (Ratis et al., 2023 ; CRD42023474349; CRD42023463818; CRD42024603264; CRD42024559621; CRD42024524596; CRD42024621202). To enhance the didactic aspect of the tutorial, multiple images illustrating each step of the search command construction process were included, ensuring a clear and practical guide for building a robust search strategy. Use of Artificial Intelligence In this research, artificial intelligence models were used, including Curie, provided by Springer Nature, and ChatGPT. ChatGPT was employed for writing correction, translation, and adaptations of scripts in the R software. RESULTS Analysis of systematic reviews Figure 1 provides a general and comparative diagram between systematic review studies in primary health and social sciences and their areas. Among a sample of 30 primary healthcare systematic review studies, two studies (7%) were found to be accessible only behind a paywall, despite being categorized as “free” in PubMed. Among the open access reviews, 10 studies (36%) incorporated the search query into the body of the text, 17 (61%) reported supplementary material, and one study (3%) did not report the search query. Among the 28 studies, 17 (61%) used Embase, 11 (39%) used Scopus, and 19 (68%) used Web of Science. Similarly, 5 (29%), 8 (73%) and 9 (47%) of these studies reported the respective database search queries. Other databases with notable reviews were Google Scholar (8, 29%) and Cochrane (16, 57%). However, only 3 (10%) of search queries reviews could be easily extracted and re-executed (See Additional File 3). In studies focusing on topics beyond primary health care, out of a sample of 30 studies, 10 (36%) incorporated the search command within the main text, while 18 (60%) reported it in supplementary material, and 1 (3%) did not provide the search query, the other study was a systematic review of the journal itself. Additionally, 14 (47%) studies used Embase, 14 (47%) used Scopus, and 20 (67%) used Web of Science. Respectively, 6 (43%), 5 (36%), and 4 (20%) of these studies documented the corresponding database search command. Notably, in one study (7%), the Embase search command was not extracted, and the same occurred in another study regarding Web of Science. Other databases with significant presence in reviews included Google Scholar (3 studies, 10%), PsycInfo (23 studies, 77%), and Cochrane (15 studies, 50%). However, in contrast to the findings presented in the other supplementary table, only 21 (79%) of the reviews employed the PubMed search engine. Among these, 9 (43%) documented the use of the PubMed search command, 8 (38%) did not extract their search commands, 1 (5%) reported a general model used across databases without specifying it, and 3 (14%) did not mention either a search command or a general model (See Additional File 4). Main query syntax and recommendations about the four chosen databases The database chosen to be the main database in this study was PubMed because of its open access, simplicity of creating commands and wide coverage of scientific literature. The results found on the main syntax queries and the recommendations given are reported in Table 1 . Table 1 Main syntaxes and recommendations found in the four databases analyzed (PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS and Web of Science) Syntax Definition Recommendation PubMed Term within quotation marks When searching for a compound term between quotation marks, PubMed's response will be articles that have exactly that formatting. E.g.: “alzheimer’s disease” Always prefer to use the compound term in parentheses for a more complete search. Justification: We show that there is a difference between searching with “” and between () - Supplementary table 1 Term within parentheses When searching for a compound term between parentheses, PubMed's response will be articles that have similar formatting, being broader than the use of quotation marks and excluding the need to use truncators *. E.g.: (alzheimer’s disease) Term with [MeSH] When searching for a term accompanied by the syntax [MeSH], the search will result in studies that were classified within the tag, where recent articles can be hidden, therefore having a smaller number of articles. E.g.: (Alzheimer’s Disease[MeSH]) Use both terms, whether accompanied by [MeSH] or not, to further increase the results found. E.g.: ((Alzheimer’s Disease[MeSH]) OR (Alzheimer’s Disease)) Justification: greater number of articles found, including the most recent ones not classified within MeSH Term without [MeSH] When you search for a term without [MeSH] support, you will get more results, with less specificity. e.g.: (Alzheimer’s Disease) Descriptor without its synonyms A simplified search using only the descriptor results in articles that use that term. Choose to create the command with the core descriptor and its synonyms found in the MeSH Entree Terms line. E.g.: ((Alzheimer Dementia) OR (Alzheimer Dementias) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer) OR (Alzheimer Disease) OR (Alzheimer's Disease) OR (Dementia, Senile) OR (Senile Dementia) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR (Alzheimer Type Dementia) OR (Alzheimer-Type Dementia (ATD)) OR (Alzheimer Type Dementia (ATD)) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer-Type (ATD)) OR (Alzheimer Type Senile Dementia) OR (Primary Senile Degenerative Dementia) OR (Dementia, Primary Senile Degenerative) OR (Alzheimer Sclerosis) OR (Sclerosis, Alzheimer) OR (Alzheimer Syndrome) OR (Alzheimer's Diseases) OR (Alzheimer Diseases) OR (Alzheimers Diseases) OR (Senile Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR (Acute Confusional Senile Dementia) OR (Senile Dementia, Acute Confusional) OR (Dementia, Presenile) OR (Presenile Dementia) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Late Onset) OR (Late Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR (Alzheimer's Disease, Focal Onset) OR (Focal Onset Alzheimer's Disease) OR (Familial Alzheimer Disease (FAD)) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Familial (FAD)) OR (Familial Alzheimer Diseases (FAD)) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Early Onset) OR (Early Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR (Presenile Alzheimer Dementia) Descriptor with its synonyms A more complete search using both the descriptor and its synonyms will result in a greater number of articles. Therefore, for a complete search it is preferable to use the terms inside parentheses (), with and without the [MeSH] syntax and with the synonyms found in the MeSH Entree Terms line: For example, a command that has Alzheimer's disease as its central feature, the following command line is recommended: ((Alzheimer Dementia) OR (Alzheimer Dementias) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer) OR (Alzheimer's Disease) OR (Dementia, Senile) OR (Senile Dementia) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR (Alzheimer Type Dementia) OR (Alzheimer-Type Dementia (ATD)) OR (Alzheimer Type Dementia (ATD)) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer-Type (ATD)) OR (Alzheimer Type Senile Dementia) OR (Primary Senile Degenerative Dementia) OR (Dementia, Primary Senile Degenerative) OR (Alzheimer Sclerosis) OR (Sclerosis, Alzheimer) OR (Alzheimer Syndrome) OR (Alzheimer's Diseases) OR (Alzheimer Diseases) OR (Alzheimers Diseases) OR (Senile Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR (Acute Confusional Senile Dementia) OR (Senile Dementia, Acute Confusional) OR (Dementia, Presenile) OR (Presenile Dementia) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Late Onset) OR (Late Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR (Alzheimer's Disease, Focal Onset) OR (Focal Onset Alzheimer's Disease) OR (Familial Alzheimer Disease (FAD)) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Familial (FAD)) OR (Familial Alzheimer Diseases (FAD)) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Early Onset) OR (Early Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR (Presenile Alzheimer Dementia) OR (Alzheimer Disease[MeSH]) OR (Alzheimer Disease)). Justification: Even though, in theory, it is not necessary to use synonyms when there is a central term followed by [MeSH] and another without, it is recommended to use the most complete one possible, as it is not known when the way PubMed search programming may change, thus, a robust command can be used in the future, ensuring the replicability of the research. Embase PubMed Command If the author is thinking of reproducing the PubMed command in Embase, it may have flaws, generate bugs and return unexpected results. It is recommended to format the PubMed command following the Embase syntax rules, which are discussed in the next rows of this table. Use of apostrophe Using an apostrophe in Embase ' can generate bugs within terms such as Alzheimer's disease. It is recommended to remove the apostrophe, e.g.: Alzheimer s disease Usage of [MeSH] Embase does not identify [MeSH] syntax resulting in bugs and may return unexpected results. Replace all [MeSH] commands with /exp, where the operating principle is the same, but in Embase. In Embase, after the PubMed command is formatted in the appropriate syntax, the command line will be automatically modified with some replacements of () by ‘, it is recommended to report in the supplementary material the command generated and corrected by the platform itself, e.g.: ((alzheimer AND dementia) OR (alzheimer AND dementias) OR (dementia AND alzheimer) OR (alzheimer AND is AND disease) OR (dementia AND senile) OR (senile AND dementia) OR (dementia AND alzheimer AND type) OR (alzheimer AND type AND dementia) OR (alzheimer AND type AND dementia AND atd) OR (alzheimer AND type AND dementia AND atd) OR (dementia AND alzheimer AND type AND atd) OR (alzheimer AND type AND senile AND dementia) OR (primary AND senile AND degenerative AND dementia) OR (dementia AND primary AND senile AND degenerative) OR (alzheimer AND sclerosis) OR (sclerosis AND alzheimer) OR (alzheimer AND syndrome) OR (alzheimer AND is AND diseases) OR (alzheimer AND diseases) OR (alzheimers AND diseases) OR (senile AND dementia AND alzheimer AND type) OR (acute AND confusional AND senile AND dementia) OR (senile AND dementia AND acute AND confusional) OR (dementia AND presenile) OR (presenile AND dementia) OR (alzheimer AND disease AND late AND onset) OR (late AND onset AND alzheimer AND disease) OR (alzheimer AND is AND disease AND focal AND onset) OR (focal AND onset AND alzheimer AND is AND disease) OR (familial AND alzheimer AND disease AND fad) OR (alzheimer AND disease AND familial AND fad) OR (familial AND alzheimer AND diseases AND fad) OR (alzheimer AND disease AND early AND onset) OR (early AND onset AND alzheimer AND disease) OR (presenile AND alzheimer AND dementia) OR (alzheimer AND disease/exp) OR (alzheimer AND disease)) Scopus PubMed Command If the author is thinking of reproducing the PubMed command in Scopus, it may have flaws, generate bugs and return unexpected results. It is recommended to format the PubMed command following the Scopus syntax rules, which are discussed in the next rows of this table. Usage of [MeSH] In Scopus there is no possibility of using syntax for descriptors. The use of synonyms used in the PubMed command is useful because you only need to remove the [MeSH] syntax and add TITLE-ABS-KEY before each term. In Scopus, most commands use the title, abstract and keyword syntax once and then open the parenthesis with all synonyms inside, but it is recommended to use this syntax and open parentheses term by term. This strategy is used for the same reason as using synonyms in PubMed even with the [MeSH] signaling, where it is not known when the way the programming will work will change, but building it this way ensures replicability in the future. For example: ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND dementias ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND alzheimer ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer's AND disease ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND senile ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( senile AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND alzheimer AND type ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND type AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer-type AND dementia AND atd ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND type AND dementia AND atd ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND alzheimer-type AND atd ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND type AND senile AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( primary AND senile AND degenerative AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND primary AND senile AND degenerative ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND sclerosis ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( sclerosis, AND alzheimer ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND syndrome ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer's AND diseases ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND diseases ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimers AND diseases ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( senile AND dementia, AND alzheimer AND type ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( acute AND confusional AND senile AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( senile AND dementia, AND acute AND confusional ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND presenile ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( presenile AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND disease, AND late AND onset ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( late AND onset AND alzheimer AND disease ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer's AND disease, AND focal AND onset ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( focal AND onset AND alzheimer's AND disease ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( familial AND alzheimer AND disease AND fad ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND disease, AND familial AND fad ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( familial AND alzheimer AND diseases AND fad ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND disease, AND early AND onset ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( early AND onset AND alzheimer AND disease ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( presenile AND alzheimer AND dementia ) ) Web of Science PubMed Command As with other databases, if the author is thinking of reproducing the PubMed command in WoS, it may have flaws, generate bugs and return unexpected results. It is recommended to format the PubMed command following the Web of Science syntax rules, which are discussed in the next lines of this table. Uso do [MeSH] In Web of Science there is no possibility of using syntax for descriptors It is recommended to reduce the synonyms, choose the main ones and add the syntax ALL= (for very specific terms, as it may result in irrelevant articles) or TS= (which refers to the topic, similar to Scopus, referring to the title, abstract and keywords. Although it is more common to use the topic command syntax and insert all attachments within a set enclosed by parentheses, it is recommended to use this term by term for the same reason that there is this recommendation for Scopus. E.g.: (TS=(Alzheimer Dementia) OR TS=(Alzheimer Dementias) OR TS=(Dementia, Alzheimer) OR TS=(Alzheimer's Disease) OR TS=(Dementia, Senile) OR TS=(Senile Dementia) OR TS=(Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR TS=(Alzheimer Type Dementia) OR TS=(Alzheimer-Type Dementia (ATD)) OR TS=(Alzheimer Type Dementia (ATD)) OR TS=(Dementia, Alzheimer-Type (ATD)) OR TS=(Alzheimer Type Senile Dementia) OR TS=(Primary Senile Degenerative Dementia) OR TS=(Dementia, Primary Senile Degenerative) OR TS=(Alzheimer Sclerosis) OR TS=(Sclerosis, Alzheimer) OR TS=(Alzheimer Syndrome) OR TS=(Alzheimer's Diseases) OR TS=(Alzheimer Diseases) OR TS=(Alzheimers Diseases) OR TS=(Senile Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR TS=(Acute Confusional Senile Dementia) OR TS=(Senile Dementia, Acute Confusional) OR TS=(Dementia, Presenile) OR TS=(Presenile Dementia) OR TS=(Alzheimer Disease, Late Onset) OR TS=(Late Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR TS=(Alzheimer's Disease, Focal Onset) OR TS=(Focal Onset Alzheimer's Disease) OR TS=(Familial Alzheimer Disease (FAD)) OR TS=(Alzheimer Disease, Familial (FAD)) OR TS=(Familial Alzheimer Diseases (FAD)) OR TS=(Alzheimer Disease, Early Onset) OR TS=(Early Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR TS=(Presenile Alzheimer Dementia) OR TS=(Alzheimer Disease)) Comparison between search strategies and new strategies and the range of optimal number of returned publications Table 2 compares the commands used in the analyzed revisions with those proposed in our model, whereas Table 3 compares the results returned originally obtained with those of the proposed model. The range of ideal results is represented in Fig. 2 , in which the ideal average results after conversion by the maximum on the scale 0–1 should be between 0.43 and 0.81. Table 2 Comparison of search commands used in other reviews in relation to the model proposed in this study Old Search Query New Search Query PMID PubMed 38937399 (("chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy" OR "CIDP" OR "chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy") AND ("subcutaneous immunoglobulin" OR "SCIG" OR "HyQvia" OR "Hizentra" OR "IgPro20" OR "Cuvitru" OR "Cutaquig" OR "subcutaneous immunoglobulins")) NOT (Review[Publication Type]) Filters: Humans ((Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating[MeSH]) OR (Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating) OR (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies) OR (Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies, Chronic) OR (Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic) OR (Polyradiculoneuropathies, Chronic Inflammatory) OR (CIDP) OR (Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR (Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy, Chronic) OR (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies) OR (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy) OR (Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies, Chronic) OR (Polyradiculopathies, Chronic Inflammatory) OR (Polyradiculopathy, Chronic Inflammatory) OR (Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory) OR (Polyneuropathy, Inflammatory Demyelinating, Chronic)) AND ((Immunoglobulins[MeSH]) OR (Immunoglobulins) OR (Immune Globulin) OR (Globulin, Immune) OR (Immune Globulins) OR (Immunoglobulin) OR (Globulins, Immune)) AND ((Subcutaneous) OR (Subcutanea)) 39487860 "chronic kidney disease" OR "CKD" OR "chronic renal insufficiency" OR "chronic renal disease" AND ("obesity" OR "body mass index" OR "overweight" OR "normal weight") AND ("metabolically healthy" OR "metabolically unhealthy") ((Renal Insufficiency, Chronic[MeSH]) OR (Renal Insufficiency, Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Insufficiencies) OR (Renal Insufficiencies, Chronic) OR (Chronic Kidney Insufficiency) OR (Chronic Kidney Insufficiencies) OR (Kidney Insufficiencies, Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Insufficiency) OR (Kidney Insufficiency, Chronic) OR (Chronic Kidney Diseases) OR (Chronic Kidney Disease) OR (Disease, Chronic Kidney) OR (Diseases, Chronic Kidney) OR (Kidney Disease, Chronic) OR (Kidney Diseases, Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Diseases) OR (Chronic Renal Disease) OR (Disease, Chronic Renal) OR (Diseases, Chronic Renal) OR (Renal Disease, Chronic) OR (Renal Diseases, Chronic)) AND ((Obesity[MeSH]) OR (Obesity) OR (overweight[MeSH]) OR (overweight) OR (Body Mass Index[MeSH]) OR (Body Mass Index) OR (Index, Body Mass) OR (Quetelet s Index) OR (Quetelets Index) OR (Quetelet Index) OR (Index, Quetelet) OR (Ideal Body Weight[MeSH]) OR (Ideal Body Weight) OR (Body Weight, Ideal) OR (Body Weights, Ideal) OR (Ideal Body Weights) OR (Weight, Ideal Body) OR (Weights, Ideal Body) OR (Ideal Body Mass) OR (Body Masses, Ideal) OR (Body Mass, Ideal) OR (Ideal Body Masses) OR (Masses, Ideal Body) OR (Mass, Ideal Body) OR (Normal Body Weight) OR (Body Weight, Normal) OR (Body Weights, Normal) OR (Normal Body Weights) OR (Weight, Normal Body) OR (Weights, Normal Body) OR (Ideal Body Weight Chart) OR (Ideal Body Weight Formula) OR (normal weight)) AND ((Metabolically Healthy) OR (Metabolically unhealthy)) 39542954 (((((laser therapy[MeSH Terms])) OR (laser[MeSH Terms])) OR (laser therapy[Text Word])) OR (laser[Text Word])) AND (((((peri-implantitis[MeSH Terms]) OR (peri-implant infections[Text Word])) OR (peri-implantitis[Text Word])) OR (peri-implant bone loss[Text Word])) OR (peri-implant defect[Text Word]) OR (peri-implant bone loss[Text Word])) ((Laser Therapy[Mesh]) OR (Laser Therapy) OR (Laser Therapies) OR (Therapies, Laser) OR (Therapy, Laser) OR (Laser Scalpel) OR (Laser Scalpels) OR (Scalpel, Laser) OR (Scalpels, Laser) OR (Laser Knives) OR (Knive, Laser) OR (Knives, Laser) OR (Laser Knive) OR (Laser Knife) OR (Knife, Laser) OR (Knifes, Laser) OR (Laser Knifes) OR (Laser Surgery) OR (Laser Surgeries) OR (Surgeries, Laser) OR (Surgery, Laser) OR (Vaporization, Laser) OR (Laser Vaporization) OR (Pulsed Laser Tissue Ablation) OR (Laser Photoablation of Tissue) OR (Laser Tissue Ablation) OR (Ablation, Laser Tissue) OR (Tissue Ablation, Laser) OR (Laser Ablation) OR (Ablation, Laser) OR (Nonablative Laser Treatment) OR (Laser Treatment, Nonablative) OR (Laser Treatments, Nonablative) OR (Nonablative Laser Treatments) OR (laser) OR (laser[MeSH])) AND ((Peri-Implantitis[MeSH]) OR (Peri-Implantitis) OR (Peri-Implantitides) OR (Peri implant) OR (Peri-implant) OR (Peri Implantitis) OR (Periimplantitis) OR (Periimplantitides)) PMID Embase 39487860 chronic kidney disease' OR 'CKD' OR 'chronic renal insufficiency' AND 'obesity' OR 'body mass index' OR 'overweight' OR 'normal weight' AND 'metabolically healthy' OR 'metabolically unhealthy' ((Renal Insufficiency Chronic/exp) OR (Renal Insufficiency Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Insufficiencies) OR (Renal Insufficiencies Chronic) OR (Chronic Kidney Insufficiency) OR (Chronic Kidney Insufficiencies) OR (Kidney Insufficiencies Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Insufficiency) OR (Kidney Insufficiency Chronic) OR (Chronic Kidney Diseases) OR (Chronic Kidney Disease) OR (Disease Chronic Kidney) OR (Diseases Chronic Kidney) OR (Kidney Disease Chronic) OR (Kidney Diseases Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Diseases) OR (Chronic Renal Disease) OR (Disease Chronic Renal) OR (Diseases Chronic Renal) OR (Renal Disease Chronic) OR (Renal Diseases Chronic)) AND ((Obesity/exp) OR (Obesity) OR (overweight/exp) OR (overweight) OR (Body Mass Index/exp) OR (Body Mass Index) OR (Index Body Mass) OR (Quetelet s Index) OR (Quetelets Index) OR (Quetelet Index) OR (Index Quetelet) OR (Ideal Body Weight/exp) OR (Ideal Body Weight) OR (Body Weight Ideal) OR (Body Weights Ideal) OR (Ideal Body Weights) OR (Weight Ideal Body) OR (Weights Ideal Body) OR (Ideal Body Mass) OR (Body Masses Ideal) OR (Body Mass Ideal) OR (Ideal Body Masses) OR (Masses Ideal Body) OR (Mass Ideal Body) OR (Normal Body Weight) OR (Body Weight Normal) OR (Body Weights Normal) OR (Normal Body Weights) OR (Weight Normal Body) OR (Weights Normal Body) OR (Ideal Body Weight Chart) OR (Ideal Body Weight Formula) OR (normal weight)) AND ((Metabolically Healthy) OR (Metabolically unhealthy)) PMID Scopus 38937399 "(""chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy"" OR ""CIDP"" OR ""chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy"") AND (""subcutaneous immunoglobulin"" OR ""SCIG"" OR ""HyQvia"" OR ""Hizentra"" OR ""IgPro20"" OR ""Cuvitru"" OR ""Cutaquig"" OR ""subcutaneous immunoglobulins"") Search was done within ""title abstract keywords""" ( TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyradiculoneuropathies Chronic Inflammatory) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (CIDP) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyradiculopathies Chronic Inflammatory) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyradiculopathy Chronic Inflammatory) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic Inflammatory) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyneuropathy Inflammatory Demyelinating Chronic) ) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Immunoglobulins) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Immune Globulin) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Globulin Immune) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Immune Globulins) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Immunoglobulin) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Globulins Immune)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Subcutaneous) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Subcutanea)) 39487860 TITLE-ABS-KEY("chronic kidney disease" OR "CKD" OR "chronic renal insufficiency") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY("obesity" OR "body mass index" OR "overweight" OR "normal weight") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY("metabolically healthy" OR "metabolically unhealthy") (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Renal Insufficiency Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Renal Insufficiencies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Renal Insufficiencies Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Kidney Insufficiency) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Kidney Insufficiencies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Kidney Insufficiencies Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Renal Insufficiency) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Kidney Insufficiency Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Kidney Diseases) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Kidney Disease) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Disease Chronic Kidney) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Diseases Chronic Kidney) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Kidney Disease Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Kidney Diseases Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Renal Diseases) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Renal Disease) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Disease Chronic Renal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Diseases Chronic Renal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Renal Disease Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Renal Diseases Chronic)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Obesity) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (overweight/exp) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (overweight) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Mass Index) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Index Body Mass) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Quetelet s Index) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Quetelets Index) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Quetelet Index) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Index Quetelet) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Weight) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Weight Ideal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Weights Ideal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Weights) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Weight Ideal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Weights Ideal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Mass) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Masses Ideal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Mass Ideal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Masses) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Masses Ideal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(Mass Ideal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Normal Body Weight) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Weight Normal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Weights Normal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Normal Body Weights) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Weight Normal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Weights Normal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Weight Chart) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Weight Formula) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (normal weight)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY(Metabolically Healthy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Metabolically unhealthy)) 39542954 ( ALL ( laser AND therapy OR laser ) AND ALL ( peri-implantitis OR peri-implant AND infections OR peri-implantitis OR peri-implant AND bone AND loss OR peri-implant AND defect )) AND (LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE, "English" ) ) (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Therapy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Therapies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Therapies Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Therapy Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Scalpel) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Scalpels) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Scalpel Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Scalpels Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Knives) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Knive Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Knives Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Knive) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Knife) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Knife Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Knifes Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Knifes) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Surgery) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Surgeries) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Surgeries Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Surgery Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Vaporization Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Vaporization) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Pulsed Laser Tissue Ablation) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Photoablation of Tissue) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Tissue Ablation) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ablation Laser Tissue) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Tissue Ablation Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Ablation) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ablation Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Nonablative Laser Treatment) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Treatment Nonablative) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Treatments Nonablative) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Nonablative Laser Treatments) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (laser) ) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Peri-Implantitis) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Peri-Implantitides) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Peri implant) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Peri-implant) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Peri Implantitis) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Periimplantitis) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Periimplantitides)) PMID Web of Science 38937399 TS=("chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy" OR "CIDP" OR "chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy") AND TS=("subcutaneous immunoglobulin" OR "SCIG" OR "HyQvia" OR "Hizentra" OR "IgPro20" OR "Cuvitru" OR "Cutaquig" OR "subcutaneous immunoglobulins") (TS=(Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating) OR TS=(Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR TS=(Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies) OR TS=(Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies Chronic) OR TS=(Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic) OR TS=(Polyradiculoneuropathies Chronic Inflammatory) OR TS=(CIDP) OR TS=(Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR TS=(Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies) OR TS=(Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy) OR TS=(Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies Chronic) OR TS=(Polyradiculopathies Chronic Inflammatory) OR TS=(Polyradiculopathy Chronic Inflammatory) OR TS=(Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic Inflammatory) OR TS=(Polyneuropathy Inflammatory Demyelinating Chronic)) AND ( TS=(Immunoglobulins) OR TS=(Immune Globulin) OR TS=(Globulin, Immune) OR TS=(Immune Globulins) OR TS=(Immunoglobulin) OR TS=(Globulins, Immune)) AND (TS=(Subcutaneous) OR TS=(Subcutanea)) 39487860 TS=("chronic kidney disease" OR "CKD" OR "chronic renal insufficiency") AND TS=("obesity" OR "body mass index" OR "overweight" OR "normal weight") AND TS=("metabolically healthy" OR "metabolically unhealthy") (TS=(Renal Insufficiency Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Renal Insufficiencies) OR TS=(Renal Insufficiencies Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Kidney Insufficiency) OR TS=(Chronic Kidney Insufficiencies) OR TS=(Kidney Insufficiencies Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Renal Insufficiency) OR TS=(Kidney Insufficiency Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Kidney Diseases) OR TS=(Chronic Kidney Disease) OR TS=(Disease Chronic Kidney) OR TS=(Diseases Chronic Kidney) OR TS=(Kidney Disease Chronic) OR TS=(Kidney Diseases Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Renal Diseases) OR TS=(Chronic Renal Disease) OR TS=(Disease Chronic Renal) OR TS=(Diseases Chronic Renal) OR TS=(Renal Disease Chronic) OR TS=(Renal Diseases Chronic)) AND (TS=(Obesity) OR TS=(overweight) OR TS=(Body Mass Index) OR TS=(Index Body Mass) OR TS=(Quetelet s Index) OR TS=(Quetelets Index) OR TS=(Quetelet Index) OR TS=(Index Quetelet) OR TS=(Ideal Body Weight) OR TS=(Body Weight Ideal) OR TS=(Body Weights Ideal) OR TS=(Ideal Body Weights) OR TS=(Weight Ideal Body) OR TS=(Weights Ideal Body) OR TS=(Ideal Body Mass) OR TS=(Body Masses Ideal) OR TS=(Body Mass Ideal) OR TS=(Ideal Body Masses) OR TS=(Masses Ideal Body) OR TS=(Mass Ideal Body) OR TS=(Normal Body Weight) OR TS=(Body Weight Normal) OR TS=(Body Weights Normal) OR TS=(Normal Body Weights) OR TS=(Weight Normal Body) OR TS=(Weights Normal Body) OR TS=(Ideal Body Weight Chart) OR TS=(Ideal Body Weight Formula) OR TS=(normal weight)) AND (TS=(Metabolically Healthy) OR TS=(Metabolically unhealthy)) 39542954 ((TS=(laser)) OR TS=(laser therapy) ) AND ((((TS=(peri-implantitis )) OR TS=(peri-implant bone loss)) OR TS=(peri-implant tissue loss)) OR TS=(peri-implant defect)) OR TS=(peri-implant infections) (TS=(Laser Therapy) OR TS=(Laser Therapies) OR TS=(Therapies Laser) OR TS=(Therapy Laser) OR TS=(Laser Scalpel) OR TS=(Laser Scalpels) OR TS=(Scalpel Laser) OR TS=(Scalpels Laser) OR TS=(Laser Knives) OR TS=(Knive Laser) OR TS=(Knives Laser) OR TS=(Laser Knive) OR TS=(Laser Knife) OR TS=(Knife Laser) OR TS=(Knifes Laser) OR TS=(Laser Knifes) OR TS=(Laser Surgery) OR TS=(Laser Surgeries) OR TS=(Surgeries Laser) OR TS=(Surgery Laser) OR TS=(Vaporization Laser) OR TS=(Laser Vaporization) OR TS=(Pulsed Laser Tissue Ablation) OR TS=(Laser Photoablation of Tissue) OR TS=(Laser Tissue Ablation) OR TS=(Ablation Laser Tissue) OR TS=(Tissue Ablation Laser) OR TS=(Laser Ablation) OR TS=(Ablation Laser) OR TS=(Nonablative Laser Treatment) OR TS=(Laser Treatment Nonablative) OR TS=(Laser Treatments Nonablative) OR TS=(Nonablative Laser Treatments) OR TS=(laser)) AND (TS=(Peri-Implantitis) OR TS=(Peri-Implantitides) OR TS=(Peri implant) OR TS=(Peri-implant) OR TS=(Peri Implantitis) OR TS=(Periimplantitis) OR TS=(Periimplantitides)) Table 3 Effect size of different search commands PMID Sintaxe PubMed Embase Scopus WoS Cohen’s D 38937399 Old 121 - 177 ¹ 236 0.81 (large effect size) New 141 - 172 256 39487860 Old 73 115 (3223) 41 114 0.53 (moderate effect size) New 1143 137 50 128 39542954 Old 454 - 3080² 1620 -0.62 (moderate but negative effect size³) New 829 - 1004 1016 Legend: Number of publications returned on January 27th and 31st, 2025 before and after the standardization proposed in this study. Of the systematic reviews included, only three presented easily extracted search queries (able to be copied and pasted into the search bars). These search queries were reformulated according to the proposed model and their results were compared. No search queries were extracted from systematic reviews of areas related to social sciences due to the predominance of other databases and the creation of search queries by automated platforms. ¹ Executing the command directly resulted in an error, so minimal adjustments were made. ² These results were obtained by running the command without the authors' imposed limitations. ³ The negative effect indicates that the effect size was larger before the modification of the search commands, suggesting that the standard model reduced the number of results retrieved in the literature review. Tutorial To build a good search command, it is necessary to define which descriptors will be used, which should be based on the research question. To start building the search command, it should be noted that the more descriptors referring to different research fields, the fewer results will be obtained, and the more descriptors referring to the same research field, the greater the number of studies that will be found. For example, in the ongoing RS “A systematic review and meta-analysis on epigenetic modifications during the memory formation process”, the central question is as follows: What epigenetic modifications occur during the memory formation process in animal memory models? The chosen research fields were the condition and the modifying agent; therefore, the descriptors are “epigenetic” and “memory”, which are linked through the Boolean term AND. In the context of incorporating multiple descriptors related to the same research field, an example is the condition “dementia”. The selected descriptors may include various types of dementia, which should be connected via the Boolean operator OR (e.g., Alzheimer OR Dementia OR Parkinson OR...). For PubMed, once the descriptors have been chosen to construct an effective search command, it is recommended to search for their registered synonyms. These can be found via MeSH terms (Medical Subject Headings), which are available in the MeSH Database, where synonyms are listed as entry terms. Figure 3 shows an example of entry terms related to the descriptor apolipoprotein E, a lipid carrier molecule. Once you find the registered synonyms, you must copy them all, separate them via the Boolean command OR, repeat the MeSH term and repeat it once more, adding the syntax [MeSH], as in the example sequence in Fig. 3 : (ApoE) OR (Apo E) OR (Apo-E) OR (Apolipoprotein E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apo E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apo E) OR (Apoproteins E) OR (Apoprotein E) OR (Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apolipoproteins E) OR (Apolipoproteins E [MeSH]). After the first part of the command is created on the basis of a descriptor, the algorithm moves on to the next descriptor: 1) If the question of the systematic review is a relationship between two descriptors, the Boolean term to be used should be AND and should have a parenthesis opening and closing the set of a descriptor (understood as “set of a descriptors” - meaning the descriptor and all its synonyms). For example, if the question is “What is the relationship between apolipoprotein E and butyrylcholinesterase under condition X?”, the search command would be as follows: ((ApoE) OR (Apo E) OR (Apo-E) OR (Apolipoprotein E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apo E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apo E) OR (Apoproteins E) OR (Apoprotein E) OR (Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apolipoproteins E) OR (Apolipoproteins E [MeSH])) AND ((Pseudocholinesterase) OR (Benzoylcholinesterase) OR (BCHE) OR (Butyrylthiocholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase[MeSH])) AND ((set) OR (of) OR (next) OR (descriptor)). 2) If the review question is about two descriptors that are not necessarily associated with another condition, use OR and do not separate the sets of descriptors in parentheses. Modifying the example from the previous question to “What is the relationship between apolipoprotein E or butyrylcholinesterase in a condition X?”, the search command would be as follows: ((ApoE) OR (Apo E) OR (Apo-E) OR (Apolipoprotein E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apo E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apo E) OR (Apoproteins E) OR (Apoprotein E) OR (Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apolipoproteins E) OR (Apolipoproteins E [MeSH]) OR (Pseudocholinesterase) OR (Benzoylcholinesterase) OR (BCHE) OR (Butyrylthiocholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase[MeSH])) AND ((set) OR (of) OR (next) OR (descriptor)). With the first command ready, specific to PubMed, run it entirely on the platform's search bar ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ ). Afterwards, the previous command must be adapted for Embase, creating the second command. For this, the following modifications are necessary: ​​change the syntax [MeSH] to /exp, delete any apostrophes (‘) and avoid commas (,). Therefore, the previous command created for the question involving apolipoprotein E and butyrylcholinesterase would be adapted to the following form: ((ApoE) OR (Apo E) OR (Apo-E) OR (Apolipoprotein E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apo E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apo E) OR (Apoproteins E) OR (Apoprotein E) OR (Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apolipoproteins E) OR (Apolipoproteins E/exp)) AND ((Pseudocholinesterase) OR (Benzoylcholinesterase) OR (BCHE) OR (Butyrylthiocholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase/exp)) AND ((set) OR (of) OR (next) OR (descriptor)). Importantly, when executing the search command in EMBASE, the platform itself will make adaptations and adjustments; these adjustments can be found in the search history above the results. In the previous example, the adjustments modified the command to (which is why apostrophes should not be used): (apoe OR (apo AND e) OR ‘apo e’ OR (apolipoprotein AND e AND isoproteins) OR (isoproteins, AND apolipoprotein AND e) OR (apo AND e AND isoproteins) OR (isoproteins, AND apo AND e) OR (apoproteins AND e) OR (apoprotein AND e) OR (apolipoprotein AND e) OR (apolipoproteins AND e)) AND (Pseudocholinesterase OR Benzoylcholinesterase OR BCHE OR Butyrylthiocholinesterase OR Butyrylcholinesterase OR ‘Butyrylcholinesterase’/exp). To create a search command for SCOPUS, we recommend to use the TITLE-ABS-KEY command before each term. Although the command will work normally as a syntax for a set, this suggestion is made to ensure method reproducibility in a future scenario where this syntax changes its functionality. Therefore, for SCOPUS, the PubMed command is changed, the MeSH syntax is removed, the TITLE-ABS-KEY syntax is added followed by parentheses for each descriptor, and the Boolean AND command is used if the synonyms are compound terms within the parentheses, e.g., ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apoe ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apo AND e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apo-e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apolipoprotein AND e AND isoproteins ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( isoproteins, AND apolipoprotein AND e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apo AND e AND isoproteins ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( isoproteins, AND apo AND e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apoproteins AND e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apoprotein AND e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (apolipoprotein AND e)) AND ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( pseudocholinesterase ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( benzoylcholinesterase ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( butyrylthiocholinesterase ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( bche ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( butyrylcholinesterase ) ). For Web of Science, the replacement of PubMed command syntax is performed by including the TS = command before each term and excluding the [MeSH] syntax, as in the example: (TS=(ApoE) OR TS=(Apo E) OR TS=(Apo-E) OR TS=(Apolipoprotein E Isoproteins) OR TS=(Isoproteins, Apolipoprotein E) OR TS=(Apo E Isoproteins) OR TS=(Isoproteins, Apo E) OR TS=(Apoproteins E) OR TS=(Apoprotein E) OR TS=(Apolipoprotein E) OR TS=(Apolipoproteins E)) AND (TS=(Pseudocholinesterase) OR TS=(Benzoylcholinesterase) OR TS=(BCHE) OR TS=(Butyrylthiocholinesterase) OR TS=(Butyrylcholinesterase)) AND (TS=(set) OR TS=(of) OR TS=(next) OR TS=(descriptor)). To report the search command and the results found, the main command (e.g., from PubMed) in the body of the text and the other commands should be reported as supplementary material (the Embase command should be reported after automatic modification of the platform). To ensure the quality of the results of the search commands, we recommend to create a graph with normalization of the data on a scale of 0–1 and to compare your results with the hypothetical range found in Fig. 2 , reporting these results in the body of the text of the systematic review, with or without meta-analysis. DISCUSSION The fundamental step for data collection in any SR is the creation of a search strategy, which must be well structured to allow future replication when the systematic review is updated (Page et al., 2021 ). This study demonstrated that not all search strategies can be replicated. Only three out of thirty systematic reviews included in this study—focused on primary health care—had search strategies that could be easily re-executed. We suggest that this issue is likely due to a lack of standardization and educational guidance in search strategy creation, highlighting the need for a more didactic tutorial beyond the PRESS recommendations (McGowan et al., 2016 ) and the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ). Additionally, there is a growing trend among authors to rely on automated platforms for conducting searches, particularly in fields beyond primary health care. While these platforms offer advantages—such as ensuring a well-structured search strategy—they also have disadvantages, such as paid access and limited availability for researchers in low- and middle-income countries. To address this issue, we recommend that paid platforms provide a free-access section where previously created search strategies can be replicated. This study also examined how the four selected databases handle essential syntax rules. We found that the use of commas between search terms is one of the most common causes of errors and incorrect search results. Accordingly, we present a standardized model for constructing search commands, grounded in a set of recommendations regarding the appropriate and inappropriate use of syntax rules for each database, and accompanied by a step-by-step tutorial. Among the four analyzed databases, PubMed was found to be the least complex and required fewer adjustments. The creation of new search strategies following the proposed model is essential for ensuring the future replicability of systematic reviews. This approach acts as a scientific safeguard, as even if databases undergo updates in their programming and logic, the use of multiple synonyms on the basis of registered terms (MeSH terms) ensures that search strategies remain standardized, reproducible, and suitable for peer review updates. However, despite being standardized, the new model results in longer and more detailed search strategies, which may initially seem overly complex. When the proposed model was compared with nonstandardized search strategies, variations were observed in Cohen’s effect size, ranging from large and moderate positive effects to moderate negative effects. These results indicate that standardized search strategies impact the number of retrieved studies, but it remains unclear whether they influence the final selection of included studies after screening and full-text review. Therefore, the proposed model for creating search queries primarily functions as a tool to standardize the development of search strategies, enhancing their alignment with scientific methodology By analyzing multiple search strategies—both in primary health care and other fields—we identified a hypothetical range of ideal search results through normalization (0 to 1 scaling). The ideal range suggests that the average number of search results should be between 0.43 and 0.81 (the R script for this calculation is available in the supplementary material). While ideal search results differ from actual results, this comparison provides a reference point for validation—similar to theoretical models in genetics, such as the Hardy‒Weinberg equilibrium (Neamatzadeh et al., 2024 ). Deviations from the ideal search results may indicate important scientific factors, such as database coverage and how the research question aligns with the available literature. The proposed tutorial focuses on four major databases—PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science—which together cover approximately 95% of the scientific literature related to primary health care, as suggested by Bramer et al. ( 2017 ). Google Scholar was excluded from the analysis. The tutorial includes several published and ongoing systematic review examples, and search strategies were structured in a highly didactic manner to assist authors in constructing standardized and comprehensive search strategies. Authors often struggle with selecting appropriate search terms and synonyms on the basis of their research question. To address this, the tutorial provides a standardized approach for choosing search terms. Furthermore, the tutorial serves as a valuable tool not only for building effective search strategies but also for reporting them accurately in published articles. A key instructional feature is the guideline for reporting a central search strategy within the manuscript body while including additional searches in the supplementary material. The tutorial strongly advises against breaking search strategies into separate tables, recommending instead that they be presented as continuous, unified commands. This approach facilitates peer review verification, result validation, and future updates of systematic reviews. Although the tutorial is designed primarily for PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, the authors can adapt the standardized approach for other databases as needed. A key limitation of the proposed model is that its precision remains uncertain—specifically, whether the number of retrieved results accurately reflects the number of included studies after full-text review. However, the primary goal of this model is to provide a standardized, accessible, and reproducible method for conducting systematic reviews. CONCLUSION This study identified a methodological gap in systematic reviews: the lack of standardization in search commands, which consequently prevents the replicability of this type of study and may impact the quality of evidence, generating suboptimal results and compromising patient safety if the review aims at clinical outcome. Therefore, the issue was analyzed, and it was demonstrated that only a few reviews can effectively have their search commands reproduced in a simple and direct manner. This lack of replicability may impact the peer review process and result verification, and even hinder the updating process after the recommended five years. Consequently, it may affect the methodological quality of these studies, which are positioned at the top of the scientific evidence pyramid. Finally, to address the identified problem, a standardized, easy-to-execute model was developed, and a didactic tutorial was proposed on how to create and report these standardized search commands. Additionally, a hypothetical range of an ideal number of returned publications was identified. It is concluded, therefore, that this study resolves the identified problem, ensuring methodological quality through the use of recommended databases and the construction of an efficient search command, guaranteeing broad coverage of the scientific literature. Abbreviations DOI Digital Object Identifier PMID PubMed Identifier PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies SR Systematic Review Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files] Competing interests and Author's Disclaimer The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Additionally, they are available to provide free assistance to all authors whose systematic reviews have been analyzed. The authors respectfully apologize for any offense that may be interpreted from the suggestions of new search commands and make the reformulations freely available for use without requiring authorization from the cited authors. Funding Araucária Foundation for Supporting Scientific and Technological Development in the State of Paraná (FA) granting the scholarship. Authors' contributions RCR was responsible for writing the text, general and specific analyses, the proposed model, and reviewing and formatting the text. GAT was responsible for analyzing the reviews for topics other than primary health care. DRS was responsible for analyzing the reviews focused on primary health care. JSB was responsible for the research guidance and methodology, and ABWB was responsible for the guidance and validation of the study, methodological review, and spelling review. Acknowledgements Acknowledgment to the Araucária Foundation for Supporting Scientific and Technological Development in the State of Paraná (FA) for granting the scholarship. References Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):245. 10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y . PMID: 29208034; PMCID: PMC5718002. Briner R, Denyer D. Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In: Rousseau DM, editor. Handbook of Evidence-Based Management: Companies, Classrooms and Research. New York University; 2012. Campbell Collaboration. Campbell systematic reviews: Policies and guidelines. Oslo: Campbell Collaboration; 2017. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155–9. 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 . Amorim LBV, Cavalcanti GDC, Cruz RMO. The choice of scaling technique matters for classification performance. Appl Soft Comput. 2023;133:109924. 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109924 . Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):420–31. 10.5195/jmla.2018.345 . Epub 2018 Oct 1. PMID: 30271283; PMCID: PMC6148624. Huang N, Li Y, Li W, Zhao R, Ou Y, Chen J, Li J. The clinical efficacy of laser in the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2024;10(1):54. 10.1186/s40729-024-00570-x . PMID: 39542954; PMCID: PMC11564455. Kwak SG, Kim JH. Central limit theorem: the cornerstone of modern statistics. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2017;70(2):144–56. 10.4097/kjae.2017.70 . .2.144. Epub 2017 Feb 21. PMID: 28367284; PMCID: PMC5370305. Kleinstäuber M, Witthöft M, Steffanowski A, Van Marwijk H, Hiller W, Lambert MJ. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1996. (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews). 10.1002/14651858.CD010628.pub2 . Lana E, Gellerbring A, Jung S, Nordberg A, Unger Lithner C, Darreh-Shori T. Homomeric and Heteromeric Aβ Species Exist in Human Brain and CSF Regardless of Alzheimer's Disease Status and Risk Genotype. Front Mol Neurosci. 2019;12:176. 10.3389/fnmol.2019.00176 . PMID: 31417354; PMCID: PMC6684963. McHugh ML. The chi-square test of independence. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2013;23(2):143–9. 10.11613/bm.2013.018 . PMID: 23894860; PMCID: PMC3900058. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40 – 6. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 . Epub 2016 Mar 19. PMID: 27005575. Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016;21(4):125–7. 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401 . Epub 2016 Jun 23. PMID: 27339128; PMCID: PMC4975798. Neamatzadeh H, Dastgheib SA, Mazaheri M, Masoudi A, Shiri A, Omidi A, Rahmani A, Golshan-Tafti A, Aghasipour M, Yeganegi M, Bahrami M, Aghili K, Khajehnoori S, Mosavi Jarrahi A. Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium in Meta-Analysis Studies and Large-Scale Genomic Sequencing Era. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024;25(7):2229–35. PMID: 39068553; PMCID: PMC11480592. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71 . PMID: 33782057; PMCID: PMC8005924. Perry A, Hammond N. Systematic reviews: The experiences of a PhD student. Psychol Learn Teach. 2002;2(1):32–5. 10.2304/plat.2002.2.1.32 . Ramzi A, Maya S, Balousha N, Sabet H, Samir A, Roshdy MR, Aljarrah G, Saleh S, Kertam A, Serag I, Shiha MR. Subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIG) for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP): A comprehensive systematic review of clinical studies and meta-analysis. Neurol Sci. 2024;45(11):5213–30. Epub 2024 Jun 28. PMID: 38937399; PMCID: PMC11470904. Ratis RC, Dacoregio MI, Simão-Silva DP, Mateus RP, Machado LPB, Bonini JS, da Silva WCFN. Confirmed Synergy Between the ɛ4 Allele of Apolipoprotein E and the Variant K of Butyrylcholinesterase as a Risk Factor for Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Alzheimers Dis Rep. 2023;7(1):613–25. 10.3233/ADR-220084 . PMID: 37483326; PMCID: PMC10357125. Rosner AL. Evidence-based medicine: revisiting the pyramid of priorities. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012;16(1):42–9. 10.1016/j.jbmt.2011.05.003 . Epub 2011 Jun 24. PMID: 22196426. Schiavo JH. PROSPERO: An International Register of Systematic Review Protocols. Med, Ref Serv Q. 2019 Apr-Jun;38(2):171–180. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2019.1588072. PMID: 31173570. Sinsomboonthong S. Performance comparison of new adjusted min-max with decimal scaling and statistical column normalization methods for artificial neural network classification. Int J Math Math Sci. 2022;2022:3584406. 10.1155/2022/3584406 . Staples M, Niazi M. Experiences using systematic review guidelines. J Syst Softw. 2007;80(9):1425–37. 10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.046 . Valizadeh M, Ahmadi AR, Abbaspour F, Valizadeh A, Syed Hasani AH, Moteshakereh SM, Nikoohemmat M, Abiri B. The risk of kidney dysfunction in metabolically healthy/unhealthy population with normal weight or overweight/obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eat Weight Disord. 2024;29(1):69. 10.1007/s40519-024-01697-x . PMID: 39487860; PMCID: PMC11531429. Supplementary Files Additionalfile1Searchcommandsused.docx Additionalfile2Script.docx AdditionalFile3The30openaccesssystematicreviews.xlsx AdditionalFile4The30Campbellsystematicreviews.xlsx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6762423","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":511098771,"identity":"64678cfb-719f-4129-9d0a-69cdc80305b2","order_by":0,"name":"Renan Cassiano Ratis","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3742-7211","institution":"UNICENTRO: Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Renan","middleName":"Cassiano","lastName":"Ratis","suffix":""},{"id":511098772,"identity":"51fca9aa-1681-40f4-b568-f933fa64f187","order_by":1,"name":"Giovanna Alcalde Torres","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UNICENTRO: Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Giovanna","middleName":"Alcalde","lastName":"Torres","suffix":""},{"id":511098773,"identity":"0975f78b-de2d-40a1-a74d-d38d832aea40","order_by":2,"name":"Daniel Rodrigo Serbena","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UNICENTRO: Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniel","middleName":"Rodrigo","lastName":"Serbena","suffix":""},{"id":511098774,"identity":"76c1218e-577d-4084-a70a-0477373277d8","order_by":3,"name":"Fernando Sluchensci dos Santos","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UNICENTRO: Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fernando","middleName":"Sluchensci dos","lastName":"Santos","suffix":""},{"id":511098775,"identity":"7711822d-4d08-4d65-aa79-95719cdc6a4c","order_by":4,"name":"Juliana Sartori Bonini","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UNICENTRO: Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Juliana","middleName":"Sartori","lastName":"Bonini","suffix":""},{"id":511098776,"identity":"86caafa9-6fea-467c-a12d-3364feeb4edf","order_by":5,"name":"Angelica Beate Winter Boldt","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UFPR: Universidade Federal do Parana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Angelica","middleName":"Beate Winter","lastName":"Boldt","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-27 20:35:00","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6762423/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6762423/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91327625,"identity":"88cb2503-19fa-4aa8-bb85-3df5d56e01f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-15 10:17:18","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":106693,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison between Systematic Reviews on Primary Healthcare and Social \u0026amp; Related fields\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6762423/v1/335515dde01ea497f698bd7c.png"},{"id":91329834,"identity":"68b322ef-f809-498d-b18d-85490499d38a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-15 10:41:18","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":189653,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHypothetical range of ideal results based on previously constructed search commands\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6762423/v1/b6b9a54cde0694d923849b17.png"},{"id":91327627,"identity":"3dd24206-bec3-4e4a-b923-7f4913fc89a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-15 10:17:18","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":73064,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDidactic demonstration of where to find synonymous terms for standardized form in the MeSH platform\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6762423/v1/6a7847c4385c083ebfa5df07.jpg"},{"id":92654330,"identity":"1e0a9743-2189-41f2-9f50-61eedadb6139","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 13:05:19","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1283329,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6762423/v1/b1b033c3-5862-4fae-be04-823d581c0c74.pdf"},{"id":91328842,"identity":"bcbed1fb-3394-41bc-ac8e-625fac645caf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-15 10:25:18","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":19703,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Additionalfile1Searchcommandsused.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6762423/v1/983f3ea69f71a82c045a4b73.docx"},{"id":91327628,"identity":"e07d5fec-6cfc-4d62-9f35-b6292a06f807","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-15 10:17:18","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":7987,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Additionalfile2Script.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6762423/v1/2e410ac68d67b45c84bbc2a3.docx"},{"id":91327631,"identity":"cb0a92e1-166b-4df0-86f5-ecb8c78190b8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-15 10:17:18","extension":"xlsx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":73433,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile3The30openaccesssystematicreviews.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6762423/v1/727f603954798b6e6aafbf66.xlsx"},{"id":91327635,"identity":"2708e21e-e063-459b-bbc7-26d8cf09de86","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-15 10:17:18","extension":"xlsx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":83554,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile4The30Campbellsystematicreviews.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6762423/v1/ac90e36a7cd5b3015cea9db8.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"How to construct a robust search strategy for systematic reviews? a methodological proposal followed by a tutorial","fulltext":[{"header":"BACKGROUND","content":"\u003cp\u003eSystematic reviews (SRs), with or without meta-analyses, are fundamental scientific tools for data synthesis and the construction of clinical guidelines that orient decision-making in medical practice (Briner \u0026amp; Denier, 2012). SRs are at the top of the evidence-based pyramid. They also serve as important tools in the teaching\u0026ndash;learning process, for curriculum integration and in-depth knowledge acquisition (Perry \u0026amp; Hammond, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Staples \u0026amp; Niasi, 2007; Briner \u0026amp; Denyer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Muhad et al., 2016). Although the primary focus of these studies is clinical practice, they also play a role in hypothesis formulation, such as for chemical and biochemical interactions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe method for conducting systematic reviews is highly rigorous, with the PRISMA statement being the most commonly used guideline (Page, 2021). The strict methodological framework for conducting systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, aims to ensure clear and transparent methodological reproducibility (Page, 2021). The PRISMA statement defines objectives and provides clear steps for developing a systematic review, establishing criteria such as the need for registering the research protocol in dedicated platforms, including PROSPERO, the Cochrane Database, and Campbell Systematic Reviews (Kleinst\u0026auml;uber, 1996; Campbell Collaboration, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Schiavo, 2019). It also highlights the requirement for the PICO strategy, two independent reviewers to complete the article selection process, and an assessment of the quality of reported evidence (Ericksen, 2018; Page, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong the key steps in conducting an SR, a literature search based on a well-structured search query is one of the initial phases. This step aims to retrieve the maximum number of relevant articles aligned with the PICO strategy and eligible for inclusion (Ericksen, 2018). Although PRISMA defines criteria for constructing and developing search strategies and several studies provide additional guidance (McGowan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), a lack of transparency is observed at this stage. Many published systematic reviews report only the descriptors used in the searches without clearly outlining the construction of the search query. In some cases, search queries are developed in a non standardized manner, potentially impacting the final results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe lack of standardization in the construction of search commands directly impacts the reliability of systematic reviews, as it can result in the inclusion of irrelevant studies or the exclusion of crucial evidence. This problem compromises the reproducibility of findings and can lead to biased interpretations of the available data, affecting the robustness of the conclusions drawn. In the clinical context, where systematic reviews play an essential role in the formulation of guidelines and evidence-based decision-making, inconsistency in literature searches can negatively influence medical practice. Errors in the retrieval of studies can result in suboptimal recommendations, directly impacting patient safety and the effectiveness of treatments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eObjectives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe aimed to evaluate the ease of term extraction and reproducibility of search strategies in previously published systematic reviews, ongoing, classroom developed and reformuled, as well as to propose a guideline and tutorial for building search strategies that can be reproduced without difficulty.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalyzing the methodological replicability of systematic reviews\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 30 most recent open access systematic reviews indexed in PubMed (see below) focusing on primary medicine and 30 systematic reviews from social sciences and other fields (education, agriculture and others) through Campbell Reviews were selected. We chose this number of systematic reviews (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30), because it is the recommended sample size for data normality according to the Central Limit Theorem (Kwak \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe search strategy in PubMed (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e involved the use of the query term \"Systematic Review and Meta-analysis\" within the time frame (Custom range) from November 1 to November 30, 2024, with the filter \"Free full text.\" To identify studies in non primary health fields, studies were selected one by one until they reached a total of 30, using the Campbell Collaboration website (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/index/18911803\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/index/18911803\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e, with searches conducted on the final days of November.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe extracted data from these reviews included the PMID, DOI, first author, title, databases used, search strategies and their execution date, whether the search strategy was included in the supplementary material or the main text, and search strategy results (only data from the four primary databases, which are the focus of this study, were extracted). These data were analyzed descriptively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo be included in the search command analysis stage of this study, a systematic review needed to contain a described search command for at least two of the four previously selected databases, with the command formatted in a free, easily understandable, and standardized manner. The exclusion criterion was not being open access.No search queries were extracted from systematic reviews of areas related to social sciences due to the predominance of other databases and the creation of search queries by automated platforms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eModel for creating a robust search command\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo develop an effective search strategy, we analyzed the functionality of four popular databases\u0026mdash;PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science\u0026mdash;focusing on Boolean operators, descriptors, synonyms, and key search commands. On the basis of the collected data, the PRISMA protocol (Page et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and the PRESS guidelines (McGowan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), we propose a standardized approach for constructing and reporting search strategies in a clear, robust, and methodologically replicable manner. The model for creating a robust search command consists of the use of synonyms identified among the list of synonymous terms registered by MeSH, formatting them according to the target database (PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science) and using sets of terms according to the importance they have in the research question (see the tutorial).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnalysis of the new proposed model and discovery of the ideal range of results found in the databases\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe search strategies for reviews that contained the necessary data were reformulated on the basis of the model proposed in this study. We subsequently executed both the original and the reformulated search strategies and compared the retrieved results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe investigated whether an optimal range of search results exists by analyzing the outcomes of the following (See additional file 1 to check all the search commands and the returns):\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSearch commands developed during the research methodology course taught by Professor JSB (a common course in science programs),\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSearch commands from other systematic reviews either in progress or previously published by the authors of this article,\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eReformulated search commands from the reviews analyzed in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis comparing the search command results from the included reviews was conducted via effect size estimation, which compared the original commands before reformulation with those following the proposed model. This was done via Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d, where effect sizes are classified as small (~\u0026thinsp;0.2), moderate (~\u0026thinsp;0.5), or large (~\u0026thinsp;0.8+) (Cohen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; McHugh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo mitigate time-related bias in the analyses (i.e., newly published studies after the original search execution by the review authors), both the reported search commands and the standardized commands were re-executed between January 27 and 31, 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo determine the optimal range of search results, data normalization was performed via 0-to-1 scaling (where the highest value in the dataset was set to 1, and all other values were divided by this maximum). On this basis, the hypothetical optimal result range was calculated as a standard deviation of +\u0026thinsp;1 (Sinsomboonthong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; De Amorim, et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). For effect size calculations (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d) and data normalization with the optimal result range, R software was used (See additional file 2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTutorial construction\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the development of the tutorial, PubMed was used as the central platform to create a baseline search command, which was then adapted for Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science by modifying the syntax accordingly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe tutorial includes an example from a previously conducted and published systematic review by the researchers of this study, as well as search commands from ongoing reviews (Ratis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; CRD42023474349; CRD42023463818; CRD42024603264; CRD42024559621; CRD42024524596; CRD42024621202).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo enhance the didactic aspect of the tutorial, multiple images illustrating each step of the search command construction process were included, ensuring a clear and practical guide for building a robust search strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eUse of Artificial Intelligence\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this research, artificial intelligence models were used, including Curie, provided by Springer Nature, and ChatGPT. ChatGPT was employed for writing correction, translation, and adaptations of scripts in the R software.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAnalysis of systematic reviews\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e provides a general and comparative diagram between systematic review studies in primary health and social sciences and their areas. Among a sample of 30 primary healthcare systematic review studies, two studies (7%) were found to be accessible only behind a paywall, despite being categorized as \u0026ldquo;free\u0026rdquo; in PubMed. Among the open access reviews, 10 studies (36%) incorporated the search query into the body of the text, 17 (61%) reported supplementary material, and one study (3%) did not report the search query. Among the 28 studies, 17 (61%) used Embase, 11 (39%) used Scopus, and 19 (68%) used Web of Science. Similarly, 5 (29%), 8 (73%) and 9 (47%) of these studies reported the respective database search queries. Other databases with notable reviews were Google Scholar (8, 29%) and Cochrane (16, 57%). However, only 3 (10%) of search queries reviews could be easily extracted and re-executed (See Additional File 3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn studies focusing on topics beyond primary health care, out of a sample of 30 studies, 10 (36%) incorporated the search command within the main text, while 18 (60%) reported it in supplementary material, and 1 (3%) did not provide the search query, the other study was a systematic review of the journal itself. Additionally, 14 (47%) studies used Embase, 14 (47%) used Scopus, and 20 (67%) used Web of Science. Respectively, 6 (43%), 5 (36%), and 4 (20%) of these studies documented the corresponding database search command. Notably, in one study (7%), the Embase search command was not extracted, and the same occurred in another study regarding Web of Science. Other databases with significant presence in reviews included Google Scholar (3 studies, 10%), PsycInfo (23 studies, 77%), and Cochrane (15 studies, 50%). However, in contrast to the findings presented in the other supplementary table, only 21 (79%) of the reviews employed the PubMed search engine. Among these, 9 (43%) documented the use of the PubMed search command, 8 (38%) did not extract their search commands, 1 (5%) reported a general model used across databases without specifying it, and 3 (14%) did not mention either a search command or a general model (See Additional File 4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMain query syntax and recommendations about the four chosen databases\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe database chosen to be the main database in this study was PubMed because of its open access, simplicity of creating commands and wide coverage of scientific literature. The results found on the main syntax queries and the recommendations given are reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMain syntaxes and recommendations found in the four databases analyzed (PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS and Web of Science)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSyntax\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDefinition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecommendation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePubMed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTerm within quotation marks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen searching for a compound term between quotation marks, PubMed's response will be articles that have exactly that formatting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eE.g.: \u0026ldquo;alzheimer\u0026rsquo;s disease\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlways prefer to use the compound term in parentheses for a more complete search.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJustification: We show that there is a difference between searching with \u0026ldquo;\u0026rdquo; and between () - Supplementary table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTerm within parentheses\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen searching for a compound term between parentheses, PubMed's response will be articles that have similar formatting, being broader than the use of quotation marks and excluding the need to use truncators *.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eE.g.: (alzheimer\u0026rsquo;s disease)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTerm with [MeSH]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen searching for a term accompanied by the syntax [MeSH], the search will result in studies that were classified within the tag, where recent articles can be hidden, therefore having a smaller number of articles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eE.g.: (Alzheimer\u0026rsquo;s Disease[MeSH])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUse both terms, whether accompanied by [MeSH] or not, to further increase the results found.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eE.g.: ((Alzheimer\u0026rsquo;s Disease[MeSH]) OR (Alzheimer\u0026rsquo;s Disease))\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJustification: greater number of articles found, including the most recent ones not classified within MeSH\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTerm without [MeSH]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen you search for a term without [MeSH] support, you will get more results, with less specificity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ee.g.: (Alzheimer\u0026rsquo;s Disease)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptor without its synonyms\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA simplified search using only the descriptor results in articles that use that term.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChoose to create the command with the core descriptor and its synonyms found in the MeSH Entree Terms line.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eE.g.: ((Alzheimer Dementia) OR (Alzheimer Dementias) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer) OR (Alzheimer Disease) OR (Alzheimer's Disease) OR (Dementia, Senile) OR (Senile Dementia) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR (Alzheimer Type Dementia) OR (Alzheimer-Type Dementia (ATD)) OR (Alzheimer Type Dementia (ATD)) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer-Type (ATD)) OR (Alzheimer Type Senile Dementia) OR (Primary Senile Degenerative Dementia) OR (Dementia, Primary Senile Degenerative) OR (Alzheimer Sclerosis) OR (Sclerosis, Alzheimer) OR (Alzheimer Syndrome) OR (Alzheimer's Diseases) OR (Alzheimer Diseases) OR (Alzheimers Diseases) OR (Senile Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR (Acute Confusional Senile Dementia) OR (Senile Dementia, Acute Confusional) OR (Dementia, Presenile) OR (Presenile Dementia) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Late Onset) OR (Late Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR (Alzheimer's Disease, Focal Onset) OR (Focal Onset Alzheimer's Disease) OR (Familial Alzheimer Disease (FAD)) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Familial (FAD)) OR (Familial Alzheimer Diseases (FAD)) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Early Onset) OR (Early Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR (Presenile Alzheimer Dementia)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptor with its synonyms\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA more complete search using both the descriptor and its synonyms will result in a greater number of articles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTherefore, for a complete search it is preferable to use the terms inside parentheses (), with and without the [MeSH] syntax and with the synonyms found in the MeSH Entree Terms line: For example, a command that has Alzheimer's disease as its central feature, the following command line is recommended:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e((Alzheimer Dementia) OR (Alzheimer Dementias) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer) OR (Alzheimer's Disease) OR (Dementia, Senile) OR (Senile Dementia) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR (Alzheimer Type Dementia) OR (Alzheimer-Type Dementia (ATD)) OR (Alzheimer Type Dementia (ATD)) OR (Dementia, Alzheimer-Type (ATD)) OR (Alzheimer Type Senile Dementia) OR (Primary Senile Degenerative Dementia) OR (Dementia, Primary Senile Degenerative) OR (Alzheimer Sclerosis) OR (Sclerosis, Alzheimer) OR (Alzheimer Syndrome) OR (Alzheimer's Diseases) OR (Alzheimer Diseases) OR (Alzheimers Diseases) OR (Senile Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR (Acute Confusional Senile Dementia) OR (Senile Dementia, Acute Confusional) OR (Dementia, Presenile) OR (Presenile Dementia) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Late Onset) OR (Late Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR (Alzheimer's Disease, Focal Onset) OR (Focal Onset Alzheimer's Disease) OR (Familial Alzheimer Disease (FAD)) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Familial (FAD)) OR (Familial Alzheimer Diseases (FAD)) OR (Alzheimer Disease, Early Onset) OR (Early Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR (Presenile Alzheimer Dementia) OR (Alzheimer Disease[MeSH]) OR (Alzheimer Disease)).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJustification: Even though, in theory, it is not necessary to use synonyms when there is a central term followed by [MeSH] and another without, it is recommended to use the most complete one possible, as it is not known when the way PubMed search programming may change, thus, a robust command can be used in the future, ensuring the replicability of the research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmbase\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePubMed Command\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf the author is thinking of reproducing the PubMed command in Embase, it may have flaws, generate bugs and return unexpected results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is recommended to format the PubMed command following the Embase syntax rules, which are discussed in the next rows of this table.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUse of apostrophe\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsing an apostrophe in Embase ' can generate bugs within terms such as Alzheimer's disease.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is recommended to remove the apostrophe, e.g.: Alzheimer s disease\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsage of [MeSH]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmbase does not identify [MeSH] syntax resulting in bugs and may return unexpected results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReplace all [MeSH] commands with /exp, where the operating principle is the same, but in Embase.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Embase, after the PubMed command is formatted in the appropriate syntax, the command line will be automatically modified with some replacements of () by \u0026lsquo;, it is recommended to report in the supplementary material the command generated and corrected by the platform itself, e.g.:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e((alzheimer AND dementia) OR (alzheimer AND dementias) OR (dementia AND alzheimer) OR (alzheimer AND is AND disease) OR (dementia AND senile) OR (senile AND dementia) OR (dementia AND alzheimer AND type) OR (alzheimer AND type AND dementia) OR (alzheimer AND type AND dementia AND atd) OR (alzheimer AND type AND dementia AND atd) OR (dementia AND alzheimer AND type AND atd) OR (alzheimer AND type AND senile AND dementia) OR (primary AND senile AND degenerative AND dementia) OR (dementia AND primary AND senile AND degenerative) OR (alzheimer AND sclerosis) OR (sclerosis AND alzheimer) OR (alzheimer AND syndrome) OR (alzheimer AND is AND diseases) OR (alzheimer AND diseases) OR (alzheimers AND diseases) OR (senile AND dementia AND alzheimer AND type) OR (acute AND confusional AND senile AND dementia) OR (senile AND dementia AND acute AND confusional) OR (dementia AND presenile) OR (presenile AND dementia) OR (alzheimer AND disease AND late AND onset) OR (late AND onset AND alzheimer AND disease) OR (alzheimer AND is AND disease AND focal AND onset) OR (focal AND onset AND alzheimer AND is AND disease) OR (familial AND alzheimer AND disease AND fad) OR (alzheimer AND disease AND familial AND fad) OR (familial AND alzheimer AND diseases AND fad) OR (alzheimer AND disease AND early AND onset) OR (early AND onset AND alzheimer AND disease) OR (presenile AND alzheimer AND dementia) OR (alzheimer AND disease/exp) OR (alzheimer AND disease))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScopus\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePubMed Command\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf the author is thinking of reproducing the PubMed command in Scopus, it may have flaws, generate bugs and return unexpected results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is recommended to format the PubMed command following the Scopus syntax rules, which are discussed in the next rows of this table.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsage of [MeSH]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Scopus there is no possibility of using syntax for descriptors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe use of synonyms used in the PubMed command is useful because you only need to remove the [MeSH] syntax and add TITLE-ABS-KEY before each term.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Scopus, most commands use the title, abstract and keyword syntax once and then open the parenthesis with all synonyms inside, but it is recommended to use this syntax and open parentheses term by term. This strategy is used for the same reason as using synonyms in PubMed even with the [MeSH] signaling, where it is not known when the way the programming will work will change, but building it this way ensures replicability in the future. For example:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND dementias ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND alzheimer ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer's AND disease ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND senile ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( senile AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND alzheimer AND type ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND type AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer-type AND dementia AND atd ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND type AND dementia AND atd ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND alzheimer-type AND atd ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND type AND senile AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( primary AND senile AND degenerative AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND primary AND senile AND degenerative ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND sclerosis ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( sclerosis, AND alzheimer ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND syndrome ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer's AND diseases ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND diseases ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimers AND diseases ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( senile AND dementia, AND alzheimer AND type ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( acute AND confusional AND senile AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( senile AND dementia, AND acute AND confusional ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( dementia, AND presenile ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( presenile AND dementia ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND disease, AND late AND onset ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( late AND onset AND alzheimer AND disease ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer's AND disease, AND focal AND onset ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( focal AND onset AND alzheimer's AND disease ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( familial AND alzheimer AND disease AND fad ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND disease, AND familial AND fad ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( familial AND alzheimer AND diseases AND fad ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( alzheimer AND disease, AND early AND onset ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( early AND onset AND alzheimer AND disease ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( presenile AND alzheimer AND dementia ) )\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWeb of Science\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePubMed Command\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs with other databases, if the author is thinking of reproducing the PubMed command in WoS, it may have flaws, generate bugs and return unexpected results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is recommended to format the PubMed command following the Web of Science syntax rules, which are discussed in the next lines of this table.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUso do [MeSH]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Web of Science there is no possibility of using syntax for descriptors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is recommended to reduce the synonyms, choose the main ones and add the syntax ALL= (for very specific terms, as it may result in irrelevant articles) or TS= (which refers to the topic, similar to Scopus, referring to the title, abstract and keywords.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough it is more common to use the topic command syntax and insert all attachments within a set enclosed by parentheses, it is recommended to use this term by term for the same reason that there is this recommendation for Scopus. E.g.:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(TS=(Alzheimer Dementia) OR TS=(Alzheimer Dementias) OR TS=(Dementia, Alzheimer) OR TS=(Alzheimer's Disease) OR TS=(Dementia, Senile) OR TS=(Senile Dementia) OR TS=(Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR TS=(Alzheimer Type Dementia) OR TS=(Alzheimer-Type Dementia (ATD)) OR TS=(Alzheimer Type Dementia (ATD)) OR TS=(Dementia, Alzheimer-Type (ATD)) OR TS=(Alzheimer Type Senile Dementia) OR TS=(Primary Senile Degenerative Dementia) OR TS=(Dementia, Primary Senile Degenerative) OR TS=(Alzheimer Sclerosis) OR TS=(Sclerosis, Alzheimer) OR TS=(Alzheimer Syndrome) OR TS=(Alzheimer's Diseases) OR TS=(Alzheimer Diseases) OR TS=(Alzheimers Diseases) OR TS=(Senile Dementia, Alzheimer Type) OR TS=(Acute Confusional Senile Dementia) OR TS=(Senile Dementia, Acute Confusional) OR TS=(Dementia, Presenile) OR TS=(Presenile Dementia) OR TS=(Alzheimer Disease, Late Onset) OR TS=(Late Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR TS=(Alzheimer's Disease, Focal Onset) OR TS=(Focal Onset Alzheimer's Disease) OR TS=(Familial Alzheimer Disease (FAD)) OR TS=(Alzheimer Disease, Familial (FAD)) OR TS=(Familial Alzheimer Diseases (FAD)) OR TS=(Alzheimer Disease, Early Onset) OR TS=(Early Onset Alzheimer Disease) OR TS=(Presenile Alzheimer Dementia) OR TS=(Alzheimer Disease))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eComparison between search strategies and new strategies and the range of optimal number of returned publications\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e compares the commands used in the analyzed revisions with those proposed in our model, whereas Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e compares the results returned originally obtained with those of the proposed model. The range of ideal results is represented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, in which the ideal average results after conversion by the maximum on the scale 0\u0026ndash;1 should be between 0.43 and 0.81.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComparison of search commands used in other reviews in relation to the model proposed in this study\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOld Search Query\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew Search Query\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePMID\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePubMed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38937399\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e((\"chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy\" OR \"CIDP\" OR \"chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy\") AND (\"subcutaneous immunoglobulin\" OR \"SCIG\" OR \"HyQvia\" OR \"Hizentra\" OR \"IgPro20\" OR \"Cuvitru\" OR \"Cutaquig\" OR \"subcutaneous immunoglobulins\")) NOT (Review[Publication Type]) Filters: Humans\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e((Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating[MeSH]) OR (Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating) OR (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies) OR (Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies, Chronic) OR (Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic) OR (Polyradiculoneuropathies, Chronic Inflammatory) OR (CIDP) OR (Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR (Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy, Chronic) OR (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies) OR (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy) OR (Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies, Chronic) OR (Polyradiculopathies, Chronic Inflammatory) OR (Polyradiculopathy, Chronic Inflammatory) OR (Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory) OR (Polyneuropathy, Inflammatory Demyelinating, Chronic)) AND ((Immunoglobulins[MeSH]) OR (Immunoglobulins) OR (Immune Globulin) OR (Globulin, Immune) OR (Immune Globulins) OR (Immunoglobulin) OR (Globulins, Immune)) AND ((Subcutaneous) OR (Subcutanea))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39487860\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"chronic kidney disease\" OR \"CKD\" OR \"chronic renal insufficiency\" OR \"chronic renal disease\" AND (\"obesity\" OR \"body mass index\" OR \"overweight\" OR \"normal weight\") AND (\"metabolically healthy\" OR \"metabolically unhealthy\")\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e((Renal Insufficiency, Chronic[MeSH]) OR (Renal Insufficiency, Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Insufficiencies) OR (Renal Insufficiencies, Chronic) OR (Chronic Kidney Insufficiency) OR (Chronic Kidney Insufficiencies) OR (Kidney Insufficiencies, Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Insufficiency) OR (Kidney Insufficiency, Chronic) OR (Chronic Kidney Diseases) OR (Chronic Kidney Disease) OR (Disease, Chronic Kidney) OR (Diseases, Chronic Kidney) OR (Kidney Disease, Chronic) OR (Kidney Diseases, Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Diseases) OR (Chronic Renal Disease) OR (Disease, Chronic Renal) OR (Diseases, Chronic Renal) OR (Renal Disease, Chronic) OR (Renal Diseases, Chronic)) AND ((Obesity[MeSH]) OR (Obesity) OR (overweight[MeSH]) OR (overweight) OR (Body Mass Index[MeSH]) OR (Body Mass Index) OR (Index, Body Mass) OR (Quetelet s Index) OR (Quetelets Index) OR (Quetelet Index) OR (Index, Quetelet) OR (Ideal Body Weight[MeSH]) OR (Ideal Body Weight) OR (Body Weight, Ideal) OR (Body Weights, Ideal) OR (Ideal Body Weights) OR (Weight, Ideal Body) OR (Weights, Ideal Body) OR (Ideal Body Mass) OR (Body Masses, Ideal) OR (Body Mass, Ideal) OR (Ideal Body Masses) OR (Masses, Ideal Body) OR (Mass, Ideal Body) OR (Normal Body Weight) OR (Body Weight, Normal) OR (Body Weights, Normal) OR (Normal Body Weights) OR (Weight, Normal Body) OR (Weights, Normal Body) OR (Ideal Body Weight Chart) OR (Ideal Body Weight Formula) OR (normal weight)) AND ((Metabolically Healthy) OR (Metabolically unhealthy))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39542954\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(((((laser therapy[MeSH Terms])) OR (laser[MeSH Terms])) OR (laser therapy[Text Word])) OR (laser[Text Word])) AND (((((peri-implantitis[MeSH Terms]) OR (peri-implant infections[Text Word])) OR (peri-implantitis[Text Word])) OR (peri-implant bone loss[Text Word])) OR (peri-implant defect[Text Word]) OR (peri-implant bone loss[Text Word]))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e((Laser Therapy[Mesh]) OR (Laser Therapy) OR (Laser Therapies) OR (Therapies, Laser) OR (Therapy, Laser) OR (Laser Scalpel) OR (Laser Scalpels) OR (Scalpel, Laser) OR (Scalpels, Laser) OR (Laser Knives) OR (Knive, Laser) OR (Knives, Laser) OR (Laser Knive) OR (Laser Knife) OR (Knife, Laser) OR (Knifes, Laser) OR (Laser Knifes) OR (Laser Surgery) OR (Laser Surgeries) OR (Surgeries, Laser) OR (Surgery, Laser) OR (Vaporization, Laser) OR (Laser Vaporization) OR (Pulsed Laser Tissue Ablation) OR (Laser Photoablation of Tissue) OR (Laser Tissue Ablation) OR (Ablation, Laser Tissue) OR (Tissue Ablation, Laser) OR (Laser Ablation) OR (Ablation, Laser) OR (Nonablative Laser Treatment) OR (Laser Treatment, Nonablative) OR (Laser Treatments, Nonablative) OR (Nonablative Laser Treatments) OR (laser) OR (laser[MeSH])) AND ((Peri-Implantitis[MeSH]) OR (Peri-Implantitis) OR (Peri-Implantitides) OR (Peri implant) OR (Peri-implant) OR (Peri Implantitis) OR (Periimplantitis) OR (Periimplantitides))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePMID\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEmbase\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39487860\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003echronic kidney disease' OR 'CKD' OR 'chronic renal insufficiency' AND 'obesity' OR 'body mass index' OR 'overweight' OR 'normal weight' AND 'metabolically healthy' OR 'metabolically unhealthy'\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e((Renal Insufficiency Chronic/exp) OR (Renal Insufficiency Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Insufficiencies) OR (Renal Insufficiencies Chronic) OR (Chronic Kidney Insufficiency) OR (Chronic Kidney Insufficiencies) OR (Kidney Insufficiencies Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Insufficiency) OR (Kidney Insufficiency Chronic) OR (Chronic Kidney Diseases) OR (Chronic Kidney Disease) OR (Disease Chronic Kidney) OR (Diseases Chronic Kidney) OR (Kidney Disease Chronic) OR (Kidney Diseases Chronic) OR (Chronic Renal Diseases) OR (Chronic Renal Disease) OR (Disease Chronic Renal) OR (Diseases Chronic Renal) OR (Renal Disease Chronic) OR (Renal Diseases Chronic)) AND ((Obesity/exp) OR (Obesity) OR (overweight/exp) OR (overweight) OR (Body Mass Index/exp) OR (Body Mass Index) OR (Index Body Mass) OR (Quetelet s Index) OR (Quetelets Index) OR (Quetelet Index) OR (Index Quetelet) OR (Ideal Body Weight/exp) OR (Ideal Body Weight) OR (Body Weight Ideal) OR (Body Weights Ideal) OR (Ideal Body Weights) OR (Weight Ideal Body) OR (Weights Ideal Body) OR (Ideal Body Mass) OR (Body Masses Ideal) OR (Body Mass Ideal) OR (Ideal Body Masses) OR (Masses Ideal Body) OR (Mass Ideal Body) OR (Normal Body Weight) OR (Body Weight Normal) OR (Body Weights Normal) OR (Normal Body Weights) OR (Weight Normal Body) OR (Weights Normal Body) OR (Ideal Body Weight Chart) OR (Ideal Body Weight Formula) OR (normal weight)) AND ((Metabolically Healthy) OR (Metabolically unhealthy))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePMID\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eScopus\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38937399\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"(\"\"chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy\"\" OR \"\"CIDP\"\" OR \"\"chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy\"\") AND (\"\"subcutaneous immunoglobulin\"\" OR \"\"SCIG\"\" OR \"\"HyQvia\"\" OR \"\"Hizentra\"\" OR \"\"IgPro20\"\" OR \"\"Cuvitru\"\" OR \"\"Cutaquig\"\" OR \"\"subcutaneous immunoglobulins\"\")\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSearch was done within \"\"title abstract keywords\"\"\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e( TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyradiculoneuropathies Chronic Inflammatory) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (CIDP) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyradiculopathies Chronic Inflammatory) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyradiculopathy Chronic Inflammatory) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic Inflammatory) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Polyneuropathy Inflammatory Demyelinating Chronic) ) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Immunoglobulins) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Immune Globulin) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Globulin Immune) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Immune Globulins) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Immunoglobulin) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Globulins Immune)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Subcutaneous) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Subcutanea))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39487860\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTITLE-ABS-KEY(\"chronic kidney disease\" OR \"CKD\" OR \"chronic renal insufficiency\") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(\"obesity\" OR \"body mass index\" OR \"overweight\" OR \"normal weight\") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(\"metabolically healthy\" OR \"metabolically unhealthy\")\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(TITLE-ABS-KEY (Renal Insufficiency Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Renal Insufficiencies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Renal Insufficiencies Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Kidney Insufficiency) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Kidney Insufficiencies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Kidney Insufficiencies Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Renal Insufficiency) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Kidney Insufficiency Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Kidney Diseases) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Kidney Disease) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Disease Chronic Kidney) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Diseases Chronic Kidney) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Kidney Disease Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Kidney Diseases Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Renal Diseases) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Chronic Renal Disease) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Disease Chronic Renal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Diseases Chronic Renal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Renal Disease Chronic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Renal Diseases Chronic)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Obesity) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (overweight/exp) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (overweight) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Mass Index) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Index Body Mass) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Quetelet s Index) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Quetelets Index) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Quetelet Index) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Index Quetelet) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Weight) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Weight Ideal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Weights Ideal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Weights) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Weight Ideal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Weights Ideal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Mass) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Masses Ideal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Mass Ideal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Masses) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Masses Ideal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(Mass Ideal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Normal Body Weight) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Weight Normal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Body Weights Normal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Normal Body Weights) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Weight Normal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Weights Normal Body) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Weight Chart) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ideal Body Weight Formula) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (normal weight)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY(Metabolically Healthy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Metabolically unhealthy))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39542954\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e( ALL ( laser AND therapy OR laser ) AND ALL ( peri-implantitis OR peri-implant AND infections OR peri-implantitis OR peri-implant AND bone AND loss OR peri-implant AND defect )) AND (LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE, \"English\" ) )\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Therapy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Therapies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Therapies Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Therapy Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Scalpel) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Scalpels) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Scalpel Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Scalpels Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Knives) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Knive Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Knives Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Knive) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Knife) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Knife Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Knifes Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Knifes) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Surgery) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Surgeries) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Surgeries Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Surgery Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Vaporization Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Vaporization) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Pulsed Laser Tissue Ablation) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Photoablation of Tissue) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Tissue Ablation) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ablation Laser Tissue) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Tissue Ablation Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Ablation) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Ablation Laser) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Nonablative Laser Treatment) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Treatment Nonablative) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Laser Treatments Nonablative) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Nonablative Laser Treatments) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (laser) ) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (Peri-Implantitis) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Peri-Implantitides) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Peri implant) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Peri-implant) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Peri Implantitis) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Periimplantitis) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (Periimplantitides))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePMID\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWeb of Science\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38937399\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTS=(\"chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy\" OR \"CIDP\" OR \"chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy\") AND TS=(\"subcutaneous immunoglobulin\" OR \"SCIG\" OR \"HyQvia\" OR \"Hizentra\" OR \"IgPro20\" OR \"Cuvitru\" OR \"Cutaquig\" OR \"subcutaneous immunoglobulins\")\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(TS=(Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating) OR TS=(Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR TS=(Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies) OR TS=(Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathies Chronic) OR TS=(Inflammatory Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic) OR TS=(Polyradiculoneuropathies Chronic Inflammatory) OR TS=(CIDP) OR TS=(Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy) OR TS=(Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies) OR TS=(Chronic Inflammatory Polyradiculopathy) OR TS=(Inflammatory Polyradiculopathies Chronic) OR TS=(Polyradiculopathies Chronic Inflammatory) OR TS=(Polyradiculopathy Chronic Inflammatory) OR TS=(Polyradiculoneuropathy Chronic Inflammatory) OR TS=(Polyneuropathy Inflammatory Demyelinating Chronic)) AND ( TS=(Immunoglobulins) OR TS=(Immune Globulin) OR TS=(Globulin, Immune) OR TS=(Immune Globulins) OR TS=(Immunoglobulin) OR TS=(Globulins, Immune)) AND (TS=(Subcutaneous) OR TS=(Subcutanea))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39487860\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTS=(\"chronic kidney disease\" OR \"CKD\" OR \"chronic renal insufficiency\") AND TS=(\"obesity\" OR \"body mass index\" OR \"overweight\" OR \"normal weight\") AND TS=(\"metabolically healthy\" OR \"metabolically unhealthy\")\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(TS=(Renal Insufficiency Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Renal Insufficiencies) OR TS=(Renal Insufficiencies Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Kidney Insufficiency) OR TS=(Chronic Kidney Insufficiencies) OR TS=(Kidney Insufficiencies Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Renal Insufficiency) OR TS=(Kidney Insufficiency Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Kidney Diseases) OR TS=(Chronic Kidney Disease) OR TS=(Disease Chronic Kidney) OR TS=(Diseases Chronic Kidney) OR TS=(Kidney Disease Chronic) OR TS=(Kidney Diseases Chronic) OR TS=(Chronic Renal Diseases) OR TS=(Chronic Renal Disease) OR TS=(Disease Chronic Renal) OR TS=(Diseases Chronic Renal) OR TS=(Renal Disease Chronic) OR TS=(Renal Diseases Chronic)) AND (TS=(Obesity) OR TS=(overweight) OR TS=(Body Mass Index) OR TS=(Index Body Mass) OR TS=(Quetelet s Index) OR TS=(Quetelets Index) OR TS=(Quetelet Index) OR TS=(Index Quetelet) OR TS=(Ideal Body Weight) OR TS=(Body Weight Ideal) OR TS=(Body Weights Ideal) OR TS=(Ideal Body Weights) OR TS=(Weight Ideal Body) OR TS=(Weights Ideal Body) OR TS=(Ideal Body Mass) OR TS=(Body Masses Ideal) OR TS=(Body Mass Ideal) OR TS=(Ideal Body Masses) OR TS=(Masses Ideal Body) OR TS=(Mass Ideal Body) OR TS=(Normal Body Weight) OR TS=(Body Weight Normal) OR TS=(Body Weights Normal) OR TS=(Normal Body Weights) OR TS=(Weight Normal Body) OR TS=(Weights Normal Body) OR TS=(Ideal Body Weight Chart) OR TS=(Ideal Body Weight Formula) OR TS=(normal weight)) AND (TS=(Metabolically Healthy) OR TS=(Metabolically unhealthy))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39542954\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e((TS=(laser)) OR TS=(laser therapy) ) AND ((((TS=(peri-implantitis )) OR TS=(peri-implant bone loss)) OR TS=(peri-implant tissue loss)) OR TS=(peri-implant defect)) OR TS=(peri-implant infections)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(TS=(Laser Therapy) OR TS=(Laser Therapies) OR TS=(Therapies Laser) OR TS=(Therapy Laser) OR TS=(Laser Scalpel) OR TS=(Laser Scalpels) OR TS=(Scalpel Laser) OR TS=(Scalpels Laser) OR TS=(Laser Knives) OR TS=(Knive Laser) OR TS=(Knives Laser) OR TS=(Laser Knive) OR TS=(Laser Knife) OR TS=(Knife Laser) OR TS=(Knifes Laser) OR TS=(Laser Knifes) OR TS=(Laser Surgery) OR TS=(Laser Surgeries) OR TS=(Surgeries Laser) OR TS=(Surgery Laser) OR TS=(Vaporization Laser) OR TS=(Laser Vaporization) OR TS=(Pulsed Laser Tissue Ablation) OR TS=(Laser Photoablation of Tissue) OR TS=(Laser Tissue Ablation) OR TS=(Ablation Laser Tissue) OR TS=(Tissue Ablation Laser) OR TS=(Laser Ablation) OR TS=(Ablation Laser) OR TS=(Nonablative Laser Treatment) OR TS=(Laser Treatment Nonablative) OR TS=(Laser Treatments Nonablative) OR TS=(Nonablative Laser Treatments) OR TS=(laser)) AND (TS=(Peri-Implantitis) OR TS=(Peri-Implantitides) OR TS=(Peri implant) OR TS=(Peri-implant) OR TS=(Peri Implantitis) OR TS=(Periimplantitis) OR TS=(Periimplantitides))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEffect size of different search commands\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePMID\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSintaxe\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePubMed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmbase\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScopus\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWoS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCohen\u0026rsquo;s D\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38937399\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOld\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e121\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e177 \u0026sup1;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e236\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.81 (large effect size)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e141\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e256\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39487860\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOld\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e115 (3223)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e114\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.53 (moderate effect size)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1143\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e137\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e128\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39542954\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOld\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e454\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3080\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1620\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.62 (moderate but negative effect size\u0026sup3;)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e829\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1004\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1016\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegend: Number of publications returned on January 27th and 31st, 2025 before and after the standardization proposed in this study. Of the systematic reviews included, only three presented easily extracted search queries (able to be copied and pasted into the search bars). These search queries were reformulated according to the proposed model and their results were compared. No search queries were extracted from systematic reviews of areas related to social sciences due to the predominance of other databases and the creation of search queries by automated platforms. \u0026sup1; Executing the command directly resulted in an error, so minimal adjustments were made. \u0026sup2; These results were obtained by running the command without the authors' imposed limitations. \u0026sup3; The negative effect indicates that the effect size was larger before the modification of the search commands, suggesting that the standard model reduced the number of results retrieved in the literature review.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTutorial\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo build a good search command, it is necessary to define which descriptors will be used, which should be based on the research question. To start building the search command, it should be noted that the more descriptors referring to different research fields, the fewer results will be obtained, and the more descriptors referring to the same research field, the greater the number of studies that will be found.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor example, in the ongoing RS \u0026ldquo;A systematic review and meta-analysis on epigenetic modifications during the memory formation process\u0026rdquo;, the central question is as follows: What epigenetic modifications occur during the memory formation process in animal memory models? The chosen research fields were the condition and the modifying agent; therefore, the descriptors are \u0026ldquo;epigenetic\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;memory\u0026rdquo;, which are linked through the Boolean term AND.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the context of incorporating multiple descriptors related to the same research field, an example is the condition \u0026ldquo;dementia\u0026rdquo;. The selected descriptors may include various types of dementia, which should be connected via the Boolean operator OR (e.g., Alzheimer OR Dementia OR Parkinson OR...).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor PubMed, once the descriptors have been chosen to construct an effective search command, it is recommended to search for their registered synonyms. These can be found via MeSH terms (Medical Subject Headings), which are available in the MeSH Database, where synonyms are listed as entry terms. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows an example of entry terms related to the descriptor apolipoprotein E, a lipid carrier molecule.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOnce you find the registered synonyms, you must copy them all, separate them via the Boolean command OR, repeat the MeSH term and repeat it once more, adding the syntax [MeSH], as in the example sequence in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e: (ApoE) OR (Apo E) OR (Apo-E) OR (Apolipoprotein E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apo E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apo E) OR (Apoproteins E) OR (Apoprotein E) OR (Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apolipoproteins E) OR (Apolipoproteins E [MeSH]).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter the first part of the command is created on the basis of a descriptor, the algorithm moves on to the next descriptor:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e1) If the question of the systematic review is a relationship between two descriptors, the Boolean term to be used should be AND and should have a parenthesis opening and closing the set of a descriptor (understood as \u0026ldquo;set of a descriptors\u0026rdquo; - meaning the descriptor and all its synonyms). For example, if the question is \u0026ldquo;What is the relationship between apolipoprotein E and butyrylcholinesterase under condition X?\u0026rdquo;, the search command would be as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e((ApoE) OR (Apo E) OR (Apo-E) OR (Apolipoprotein E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apo E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apo E) OR (Apoproteins E) OR (Apoprotein E) OR (Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apolipoproteins E) OR (Apolipoproteins E [MeSH])) AND ((Pseudocholinesterase) OR (Benzoylcholinesterase) OR (BCHE) OR (Butyrylthiocholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase[MeSH])) AND ((set) OR (of) OR (next) OR (descriptor)).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2) If the review question is about two descriptors that are not necessarily associated with another condition, use OR and do not separate the sets of descriptors in parentheses. Modifying the example from the previous question to \u0026ldquo;What is the relationship between apolipoprotein E or butyrylcholinesterase in a condition X?\u0026rdquo;, the search command would be as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e((ApoE) OR (Apo E) OR (Apo-E) OR (Apolipoprotein E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apo E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apo E) OR (Apoproteins E) OR (Apoprotein E) OR (Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apolipoproteins E) OR (Apolipoproteins E [MeSH]) OR (Pseudocholinesterase) OR (Benzoylcholinesterase) OR (BCHE) OR (Butyrylthiocholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase[MeSH])) AND ((set) OR (of) OR (next) OR (descriptor)).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith the first command ready, specific to PubMed, run it entirely on the platform's search bar (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfterwards, the previous command must be adapted for Embase, creating the second command. For this, the following modifications are necessary: ​​change the syntax [MeSH] to /exp, delete any apostrophes (\u0026lsquo;) and avoid commas (,). Therefore, the previous command created for the question involving apolipoprotein E and butyrylcholinesterase would be adapted to the following form:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e((ApoE) OR (Apo E) OR (Apo-E) OR (Apolipoprotein E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apo E Isoproteins) OR (Isoproteins, Apo E) OR (Apoproteins E) OR (Apoprotein E) OR (Apolipoprotein E) OR (Apolipoproteins E) OR (Apolipoproteins E/exp)) AND ((Pseudocholinesterase) OR (Benzoylcholinesterase) OR (BCHE) OR (Butyrylthiocholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase) OR (Butyrylcholinesterase/exp)) AND ((set) OR (of) OR (next) OR (descriptor)).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportantly, when executing the search command in EMBASE, the platform itself will make adaptations and adjustments; these adjustments can be found in the search history above the results. In the previous example, the adjustments modified the command to (which is why apostrophes should not be used): (apoe OR (apo AND e) OR \u0026lsquo;apo e\u0026rsquo; OR (apolipoprotein AND e AND isoproteins) OR (isoproteins, AND apolipoprotein AND e) OR (apo AND e AND isoproteins) OR (isoproteins, AND apo AND e) OR (apoproteins AND e) OR (apoprotein AND e) OR (apolipoprotein AND e) OR (apolipoproteins AND e)) AND (Pseudocholinesterase OR Benzoylcholinesterase OR BCHE OR Butyrylthiocholinesterase OR Butyrylcholinesterase OR \u0026lsquo;Butyrylcholinesterase\u0026rsquo;/exp).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo create a search command for SCOPUS, we recommend to use the TITLE-ABS-KEY command before each term. Although the command will work normally as a syntax for a set, this suggestion is made to ensure method reproducibility in a future scenario where this syntax changes its functionality. Therefore, for SCOPUS, the PubMed command is changed, the MeSH syntax is removed, the TITLE-ABS-KEY syntax is added followed by parentheses for each descriptor, and the Boolean AND command is used if the synonyms are compound terms within the parentheses, e.g.,\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apoe ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apo AND e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apo-e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apolipoprotein AND e AND isoproteins ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( isoproteins, AND apolipoprotein AND e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apo AND e AND isoproteins ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( isoproteins, AND apo AND e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apoproteins AND e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( apoprotein AND e ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (apolipoprotein AND e)) AND ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( pseudocholinesterase ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( benzoylcholinesterase ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( butyrylthiocholinesterase ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( bche ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( butyrylcholinesterase ) ).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor Web of Science, the replacement of PubMed command syntax is performed by including the TS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;command before each term and excluding the [MeSH] syntax, as in the example: (TS=(ApoE) OR TS=(Apo E) OR TS=(Apo-E) OR TS=(Apolipoprotein E Isoproteins) OR TS=(Isoproteins, Apolipoprotein E) OR TS=(Apo E Isoproteins) OR TS=(Isoproteins, Apo E) OR TS=(Apoproteins E) OR TS=(Apoprotein E) OR TS=(Apolipoprotein E) OR TS=(Apolipoproteins E)) AND (TS=(Pseudocholinesterase) OR TS=(Benzoylcholinesterase) OR TS=(BCHE) OR TS=(Butyrylthiocholinesterase) OR TS=(Butyrylcholinesterase)) AND (TS=(set) OR TS=(of) OR TS=(next) OR TS=(descriptor)).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo report the search command and the results found, the main command (e.g., from PubMed) in the body of the text and the other commands should be reported as supplementary material (the Embase command should be reported after automatic modification of the platform). To ensure the quality of the results of the search commands, we recommend to create a graph with normalization of the data on a scale of 0\u0026ndash;1 and to compare your results with the hypothetical range found in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, reporting these results in the body of the text of the systematic review, with or without meta-analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe fundamental step for data collection in any SR is the creation of a search strategy, which must be well structured to allow future replication when the systematic review is updated (Page et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This study demonstrated that not all search strategies can be replicated. Only three out of thirty systematic reviews included in this study\u0026mdash;focused on primary health care\u0026mdash;had search strategies that could be easily re-executed. We suggest that this issue is likely due to a lack of standardization and educational guidance in search strategy creation, highlighting the need for a more didactic tutorial beyond the PRESS recommendations (McGowan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, there is a growing trend among authors to rely on automated platforms for conducting searches, particularly in fields beyond primary health care. While these platforms offer advantages\u0026mdash;such as ensuring a well-structured search strategy\u0026mdash;they also have disadvantages, such as paid access and limited availability for researchers in low- and middle-income countries. To address this issue, we recommend that paid platforms provide a free-access section where previously created search strategies can be replicated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study also examined how the four selected databases handle essential syntax rules. We found that the use of commas between search terms is one of the most common causes of errors and incorrect search results. Accordingly, we present a standardized model for constructing search commands, grounded in a set of recommendations regarding the appropriate and inappropriate use of syntax rules for each database, and accompanied by a step-by-step tutorial. Among the four analyzed databases, PubMed was found to be the least complex and required fewer adjustments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe creation of new search strategies following the proposed model is essential for ensuring the future replicability of systematic reviews. This approach acts as a scientific safeguard, as even if databases undergo updates in their programming and logic, the use of multiple synonyms on the basis of registered terms (MeSH terms) ensures that search strategies remain standardized, reproducible, and suitable for peer review updates. However, despite being standardized, the new model results in longer and more detailed search strategies, which may initially seem overly complex.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen the proposed model was compared with nonstandardized search strategies, variations were observed in Cohen\u0026rsquo;s effect size, ranging from large and moderate positive effects to moderate negative effects. These results indicate that standardized search strategies impact the number of retrieved studies, but it remains unclear whether they influence the final selection of included studies after screening and full-text review. Therefore, the proposed model for creating search queries primarily functions as a tool to standardize the development of search strategies, enhancing their alignment with scientific methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy analyzing multiple search strategies\u0026mdash;both in primary health care and other fields\u0026mdash;we identified a hypothetical range of ideal search results through normalization (0 to 1 scaling). The ideal range suggests that the average number of search results should be between 0.43 and 0.81 (the R script for this calculation is available in the supplementary material). While ideal search results differ from actual results, this comparison provides a reference point for validation\u0026mdash;similar to theoretical models in genetics, such as the Hardy‒Weinberg equilibrium (Neamatzadeh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Deviations from the ideal search results may indicate important scientific factors, such as database coverage and how the research question aligns with the available literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe proposed tutorial focuses on four major databases\u0026mdash;PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science\u0026mdash;which together cover approximately 95% of the scientific literature related to primary health care, as suggested by Bramer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Google Scholar was excluded from the analysis. The tutorial includes several published and ongoing systematic review examples, and search strategies were structured in a highly didactic manner to assist authors in constructing standardized and comprehensive search strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthors often struggle with selecting appropriate search terms and synonyms on the basis of their research question. To address this, the tutorial provides a standardized approach for choosing search terms. Furthermore, the tutorial serves as a valuable tool not only for building effective search strategies but also for reporting them accurately in published articles. A key instructional feature is the guideline for reporting a central search strategy within the manuscript body while including additional searches in the supplementary material. The tutorial strongly advises against breaking search strategies into separate tables, recommending instead that they be presented as continuous, unified commands. This approach facilitates peer review verification, result validation, and future updates of systematic reviews.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough the tutorial is designed primarily for PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, the authors can adapt the standardized approach for other databases as needed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA key limitation of the proposed model is that its precision remains uncertain\u0026mdash;specifically, whether the number of retrieved results accurately reflects the number of included studies after full-text review. However, the primary goal of this model is to provide a standardized, accessible, and reproducible method for conducting systematic reviews.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study identified a methodological gap in systematic reviews: the lack of standardization in search commands, which consequently prevents the replicability of this type of study and may impact the quality of evidence, generating suboptimal results and compromising patient safety if the review aims at clinical outcome. Therefore, the issue was analyzed, and it was demonstrated that only a few reviews can effectively have their search commands reproduced in a simple and direct manner. This lack of replicability may impact the peer review process and result verification, and even hinder the updating process after the recommended five years. Consequently, it may affect the methodological quality of these studies, which are positioned at the top of the scientific evidence pyramid.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, to address the identified problem, a standardized, easy-to-execute model was developed, and a didactic tutorial was proposed on how to create and report these standardized search commands. Additionally, a hypothetical range of an ideal number of returned publications was identified. It is concluded, therefore, that this study resolves the identified problem, ensuring methodological quality through the use of recommended databases and the construction of an efficient search command, guaranteeing broad coverage of the scientific literature.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eDOI\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDigital Object Identifier\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePMID\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePubMed Identifier\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePRISMA\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePRESS\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeer Review of Electronic Search Strategies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSR\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSystematic Review\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests and Author's Disclaimer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest. Additionally, they are available to provide free assistance to all authors whose systematic reviews have been analyzed. The authors respectfully apologize for any offense that may be interpreted from the suggestions of new search commands and make the reformulations freely available for use without requiring authorization from the cited authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAraucária Foundation for Supporting Scientific and Technological Development in the State of Paraná (FA) granting the scholarship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors' contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRCR was responsible for writing the text, general and specific analyses, the proposed model, and reviewing and formatting the text. GAT was responsible for analyzing the reviews for topics other than primary health care. DRS was responsible for analyzing the reviews focused on primary health care. JSB was responsible for the research guidance and methodology, and ABWB was responsible for the guidance and validation of the study, methodological review, and spelling review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgment to the Araucária Foundation for Supporting Scientific and Technological Development in the State of Paraná (FA) for granting the scholarship.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):245. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 29208034; PMCID: PMC5718002.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBriner R, Denyer D. Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In: Rousseau DM, editor. Handbook of Evidence-Based Management: Companies, Classrooms and Research. New York University; 2012.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCampbell Collaboration. Campbell systematic reviews: Policies and guidelines. Oslo: Campbell Collaboration; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmorim LBV, Cavalcanti GDC, Cruz RMO. The choice of scaling technique matters for classification performance. Appl Soft Comput. 2023;133:109924. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109924\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109924\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):420\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5195/jmla.2018.345\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5195/jmla.2018.345\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Epub 2018 Oct 1. PMID: 30271283; PMCID: PMC6148624.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang N, Li Y, Li W, Zhao R, Ou Y, Chen J, Li J. The clinical efficacy of laser in the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2024;10(1):54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s40729-024-00570-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40729-024-00570-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 39542954; PMCID: PMC11564455.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKwak SG, Kim JH. Central limit theorem: the cornerstone of modern statistics. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2017;70(2):144\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4097/kjae.2017.70\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4097/kjae.2017.70\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. .2.144. Epub 2017 Feb 21. PMID: 28367284; PMCID: PMC5370305.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKleinst\u0026auml;uber M, Witth\u0026ouml;ft M, Steffanowski A, Van Marwijk H, Hiller W, Lambert MJ. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons Ltd; 1996. (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/14651858.CD010628.pub2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/14651858.CD010628.pub2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLana E, Gellerbring A, Jung S, Nordberg A, Unger Lithner C, Darreh-Shori T. Homomeric and Heteromeric Aβ Species Exist in Human Brain and CSF Regardless of Alzheimer's Disease Status and Risk Genotype. Front Mol Neurosci. 2019;12:176. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/fnmol.2019.00176\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fnmol.2019.00176\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 31417354; PMCID: PMC6684963.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcHugh ML. The chi-square test of independence. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2013;23(2):143\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.11613/bm.2013.018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.11613/bm.2013.018\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 23894860; PMCID: PMC3900058.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Epub 2016 Mar 19. PMID: 27005575.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMurad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016;21(4):125\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Epub 2016 Jun 23. PMID: 27339128; PMCID: PMC4975798.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeamatzadeh H, Dastgheib SA, Mazaheri M, Masoudi A, Shiri A, Omidi A, Rahmani A, Golshan-Tafti A, Aghasipour M, Yeganegi M, Bahrami M, Aghili K, Khajehnoori S, Mosavi Jarrahi A. Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium in Meta-Analysis Studies and Large-Scale Genomic Sequencing Era. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024;25(7):2229\u0026ndash;35. PMID: 39068553; PMCID: PMC11480592.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePage MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hr\u0026oacute;bjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/bmj.n71\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmj.n71\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 33782057; PMCID: PMC8005924.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerry A, Hammond N. Systematic reviews: The experiences of a PhD student. Psychol Learn Teach. 2002;2(1):32\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2304/plat.2002.2.1.32\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2304/plat.2002.2.1.32\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamzi A, Maya S, Balousha N, Sabet H, Samir A, Roshdy MR, Aljarrah G, Saleh S, Kertam A, Serag I, Shiha MR. Subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIG) for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP): A comprehensive systematic review of clinical studies and meta-analysis. Neurol Sci. 2024;45(11):5213\u0026ndash;30. Epub 2024 Jun 28. PMID: 38937399; PMCID: PMC11470904.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRatis RC, Dacoregio MI, Sim\u0026atilde;o-Silva DP, Mateus RP, Machado LPB, Bonini JS, da Silva WCFN. Confirmed Synergy Between the ɛ4 Allele of Apolipoprotein E and the Variant K of Butyrylcholinesterase as a Risk Factor for Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Alzheimers Dis Rep. 2023;7(1):613\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3233/ADR-220084\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3233/ADR-220084\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 37483326; PMCID: PMC10357125.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosner AL. Evidence-based medicine: revisiting the pyramid of priorities. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012;16(1):42\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jbmt.2011.05.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jbmt.2011.05.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Epub 2011 Jun 24. PMID: 22196426.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchiavo JH. PROSPERO: An International Register of Systematic Review Protocols. Med, Ref Serv Q. 2019 Apr-Jun;38(2):171\u0026ndash;180. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2019.1588072. PMID: 31173570.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSinsomboonthong S. Performance comparison of new adjusted min-max with decimal scaling and statistical column normalization methods for artificial neural network classification. Int J Math Math Sci. 2022;2022:3584406. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1155/2022/3584406\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1155/2022/3584406\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStaples M, Niazi M. Experiences using systematic review guidelines. J Syst Softw. 2007;80(9):1425\u0026ndash;37. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.046\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.046\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValizadeh M, Ahmadi AR, Abbaspour F, Valizadeh A, Syed Hasani AH, Moteshakereh SM, Nikoohemmat M, Abiri B. The risk of kidney dysfunction in metabolically healthy/unhealthy population with normal weight or overweight/obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eat Weight Disord. 2024;29(1):69. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s40519-024-01697-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s40519-024-01697-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 39487860; PMCID: PMC11531429.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Search strategy, Evidence quality, Information retrieval, Database search commands","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6762423/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6762423/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground:\u003c/strong\u003e A methodological issue has been identified in systematic reviews: the lack of standardization in search query formulation and the difficulty in developing them, which compromises evidence quality by yielding suboptimal results.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods: \u003c/strong\u003eTo analyze search queries and propose a standardized model for their development, we evaluated a total of 30 open-access systematic reviews on primary health care selected from PubMed, along with 30 studies covering topics related to social sciences obtained from Campbell Collaboration publications. To analyze database main syntaxes and propose a standardized model, we examined the functionalities of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus and built a tutorial for the creation of queries aiming for an optimal result range. For the model, we propose the use of essential descriptors according to the research question, synonyms registered in the MeSH platform and syntax adaptations for the cited databases. We applied our model of multiple search queries (n=19) being one published, six ongoing, nine classroom-developed and three reformulated systematic reviews.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults:\u003c/strong\u003e In systematic reviews on primary health care, 10/30 report the research query in the main text, the same proportion for systematic reviews on topics related to social sciences. However, only three of 30 search queries in primary health care reviews were easily extracted and re-executed. Among the main functionalities of the analyzed databases, [MeSH] was identified as a key feature in PubMed and /exp in Embase, with comma usage being a major cause of command failures. The hypothetical range for optimal results suggests that an ideal mean after converting the number of returned publications to a maximum normalization from 0 to 1 is between 0.43 and 0.81. The developed tutorial includes various examples and images to enhance understanding.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions: \u003c/strong\u003eThe findings indicate a lack of reproducibility in search query formulation and standardization, highlighting a gap in the application of the scientific method. To address this issue, our standardized development model is accompanied by a didactic tutorial to ensure methodological quality for building a well-structured search query. The application of a reproducible method for systematic reviews ensures methodological quality and is essential for ensuring evidence reliability, preventing suboptimal outcomes in clinical decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"How to construct a robust search strategy for systematic reviews? a methodological proposal followed by a tutorial","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-15 10:17:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6762423/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5b91d0af-c8bf-4f6b-a3f7-3a026f2f3d1a","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 15th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-02T12:57:12+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-15 10:17:14","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6762423","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6762423","identity":"rs-6762423","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}