Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Oct;94(4):421-9, e205.

"Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches

Andrew Booth  1
Affiliations

"Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches

Andrew Booth. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Oct.

Abstract

Context: Systematic reviews of qualitative research studies extend understanding of health care beyond effectiveness to acceptability and user views.

Objective: The paper surveys reports of qualitative systematic reviews and, by characterizing techniques used to identify articles for inclusion, proposes standards for reporting of literature searches.

Data sources and study selection: A search of MEDLINE was performed for qualitative systematic reviews published from 1988 to December 2004, supported by searches of CINAHL, Web of Knowledge (including the Science and Social Sciences Citation Index), and the Cochrane Methodology Register, and Internet searches using the Copernic Agent Professional meta-search agent. Studies were included if they used techniques of qualitative synthesis in reviewing research studies in health care. Narrative reviews were excluded.

Data extraction: Authors, year of publication, sampling strategy, databases, keywords, and other approaches used were extracted.

Data synthesis: Sixty-four studies were identified, and forty-three met inclusion criteria for this review. A summary of searching methods was produced and used to construct the STARLITE mnemonic (sampling strategy, type of study, approaches, range of years, limits, inclusion and exclusions, terms used, electronic sources).

Conclusions: Considerable variation exists in search methods for qualitative systematic reviews. While diversity in methods is appropriate during the development of review methodology, major concerns remain about the absence of an accepted standard and the consequent poor quality of reporting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Verification strategy
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • In response to "Brimful of STARLITE".
    Sandelowski M. Sandelowski M. J Med Libr Assoc. 2007 Jul;95(3):233; author reply 233. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.95.2.117. J Med Libr Assoc. 2007. PMID: 17641751 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. Ritchie JE.. Using qualitative research to enhance the evidence-based practice of health care providers. Aust J Physiother. 1999;45(4:):251–6. - PubMed
    1. Evans D. Database searches for qualitative research. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002 Jul; 90(3:):290–3. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Madjar I, Taylor B, and Lawler J. The role of qualitative research in evidence based practice. Collegian. 2002 Oct; 9(4:):7–9. - PubMed
    1. Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P.. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(16:):iii–ix,. 1–274. - PubMed
    1. Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P.. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Brit J Management. 2003;14(3:):207–22.

MeSH terms