506 lines
15 KiB
Markdown
506 lines
15 KiB
Markdown
# Literature Search Strategies
|
|
|
|
## Effective Techniques for Finding Scientific Evidence
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive literature search is essential for grounding hypotheses in existing evidence. This reference provides strategies for both PubMed (biomedical literature) and general scientific search.
|
|
|
|
## Search Strategy Framework
|
|
|
|
### Three-Phase Approach
|
|
|
|
1. **Broad exploration:** Understand the landscape and identify key concepts
|
|
2. **Focused searching:** Target specific mechanisms, theories, or findings
|
|
3. **Citation mining:** Follow references and related articles from key papers
|
|
|
|
### Before You Search
|
|
|
|
**Clarify search goals:**
|
|
- What aspects of the phenomenon need evidence?
|
|
- What types of studies are most relevant (reviews, primary research, methods)?
|
|
- What time frame is relevant (recent only, or historical context)?
|
|
- What level of evidence is needed (mechanistic, correlational, causal)?
|
|
|
|
## PubMed Search Strategies
|
|
|
|
### When to Use PubMed
|
|
|
|
Use WebFetch with PubMed URLs for:
|
|
- Biomedical and life sciences research
|
|
- Clinical studies and medical literature
|
|
- Molecular, cellular, and physiological mechanisms
|
|
- Disease etiology and pathology
|
|
- Drug and therapeutic research
|
|
|
|
### Effective PubMed Search Techniques
|
|
|
|
#### 1. Start with Review Articles
|
|
|
|
**Why:** Reviews synthesize literature, identify key concepts, and provide comprehensive reference lists.
|
|
|
|
**Search strategy:**
|
|
- Add "review" to search terms
|
|
- Use PubMed filters: Article Type → Review, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis
|
|
- Look for recent reviews (last 2-5 years)
|
|
|
|
**Example searches:**
|
|
- `https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=wound+healing+diabetes+review`
|
|
- `https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=gut+microbiome+cognition+systematic+review`
|
|
|
|
#### 2. Use MeSH Terms (Medical Subject Headings)
|
|
|
|
**Why:** MeSH terms are standardized vocabulary that captures concept variations.
|
|
|
|
**Strategy:**
|
|
- PubMed auto-suggests MeSH terms
|
|
- Helps find papers using different terminology for same concept
|
|
- More comprehensive than keyword-only searches
|
|
|
|
**Example:**
|
|
- Instead of just "heart attack," use MeSH term "Myocardial Infarction"
|
|
- Captures papers using "MI," "heart attack," "cardiac infarction," etc.
|
|
|
|
#### 3. Boolean Operators and Advanced Syntax
|
|
|
|
**AND:** Narrow search (all terms must be present)
|
|
- `diabetes AND wound healing AND inflammation`
|
|
|
|
**OR:** Broaden search (any term can be present)
|
|
- `(Alzheimer OR dementia) AND gut microbiome`
|
|
|
|
**NOT:** Exclude terms
|
|
- `cancer treatment NOT surgery`
|
|
|
|
**Quotes:** Exact phrases
|
|
- `"oxidative stress"`
|
|
|
|
**Wildcards:** Variations
|
|
- `gene*` finds gene, genes, genetic, genetics
|
|
|
|
#### 4. Filter by Publication Type and Date
|
|
|
|
**Publication types:**
|
|
- Clinical Trial
|
|
- Meta-Analysis
|
|
- Systematic Review
|
|
- Research Support, NIH
|
|
- Randomized Controlled Trial
|
|
|
|
**Date filters:**
|
|
- Recent work (last 2-5 years): Cutting-edge findings
|
|
- Historical work: Foundational studies
|
|
- Specific time periods: Track development of understanding
|
|
|
|
#### 5. Use "Similar Articles" and "Cited By"
|
|
|
|
**Strategy:**
|
|
- Find one highly relevant paper
|
|
- Click "Similar articles" for related work
|
|
- Use cited by tools to find newer work building on it
|
|
|
|
### PubMed Search Examples by Hypothesis Goal
|
|
|
|
**Mechanistic understanding:**
|
|
```
|
|
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=(mechanism+OR+pathway)+AND+[phenomenon]+AND+(molecular+OR+cellular)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Causal relationships:**
|
|
```
|
|
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=[exposure]+AND+[outcome]+AND+(randomized+controlled+trial+OR+cohort+study)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Biomarkers and associations:**
|
|
```
|
|
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=[biomarker]+AND+[disease]+AND+(association+OR+correlation+OR+prediction)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Treatment effectiveness:**
|
|
```
|
|
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=[intervention]+AND+[condition]+AND+(efficacy+OR+effectiveness+OR+clinical+trial)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## General Scientific Web Search Strategies
|
|
|
|
### When to Use Web Search
|
|
|
|
Use WebSearch for:
|
|
- Non-biomedical sciences (physics, chemistry, materials, earth sciences)
|
|
- Interdisciplinary topics
|
|
- Recent preprints and unpublished work
|
|
- Grey literature (technical reports, conference proceedings)
|
|
- Broader context and cross-domain analogies
|
|
|
|
### Effective Web Search Techniques
|
|
|
|
#### 1. Use Domain-Specific Search Terms
|
|
|
|
**Include field-specific terminology:**
|
|
- Chemistry: "mechanism," "reaction pathway," "synthesis"
|
|
- Physics: "model," "theory," "experimental validation"
|
|
- Materials science: "properties," "characterization," "synthesis"
|
|
- Ecology: "population dynamics," "community structure"
|
|
|
|
#### 2. Target Academic Sources
|
|
|
|
**Search operators:**
|
|
- `site:arxiv.org` - Preprints (physics, CS, math, quantitative biology)
|
|
- `site:biorxiv.org` - Biology preprints
|
|
- `site:edu` - Academic institutions
|
|
- `filetype:pdf` - Academic papers (often)
|
|
|
|
**Example searches:**
|
|
- `superconductivity high temperature mechanism site:arxiv.org`
|
|
- `CRISPR off-target effects site:biorxiv.org`
|
|
|
|
#### 3. Search for Authors and Labs
|
|
|
|
**When you find a relevant paper:**
|
|
- Search for the authors' other work
|
|
- Find their lab website for unpublished work
|
|
- Identify key research groups in the field
|
|
|
|
#### 4. Use Google Scholar Approaches
|
|
|
|
**Strategies:**
|
|
- Use "Cited by" to find newer related work
|
|
- Use "Related articles" to expand search
|
|
- Set date ranges to focus on recent work
|
|
- Use author: operator to find specific researchers
|
|
|
|
#### 5. Combine General and Specific Terms
|
|
|
|
**Structure:**
|
|
- Specific phenomenon + general concept
|
|
- "tomato plant growth" + "bacterial promotion"
|
|
- "cognitive decline" + "gut microbiome"
|
|
|
|
**Boolean logic:**
|
|
- Use quotes for exact phrases: `"spike protein mutation"`
|
|
- Use OR for alternatives: `(transmissibility OR transmission rate)`
|
|
- Combine: `"spike protein" AND (transmissibility OR virulence) AND mutation`
|
|
|
|
## Cross-Database Search Strategies
|
|
|
|
### Comprehensive Literature Search Workflow
|
|
|
|
1. **Start with reviews (PubMed or Web Search):**
|
|
- Identify key concepts and terminology
|
|
- Note influential papers and researchers
|
|
- Understand current state of field
|
|
|
|
2. **Focused primary research (PubMed):**
|
|
- Search for specific mechanisms
|
|
- Find experimental evidence
|
|
- Identify methodologies
|
|
|
|
3. **Broaden with web search:**
|
|
- Find related work in other fields
|
|
- Locate recent preprints
|
|
- Identify analogous systems
|
|
|
|
4. **Citation mining:**
|
|
- Follow references from key papers
|
|
- Use "cited by" to find recent work
|
|
- Track influential studies
|
|
|
|
5. **Iterative refinement:**
|
|
- Add new terms discovered in papers
|
|
- Narrow if too many results
|
|
- Broaden if too few relevant results
|
|
|
|
## Topic-Specific Search Strategies
|
|
|
|
### Mechanisms and Pathways
|
|
|
|
**Goal:** Understand how something works
|
|
|
|
**Search components:**
|
|
- Phenomenon + "mechanism"
|
|
- Phenomenon + "pathway"
|
|
- Phenomenon + specific molecules/pathways suspected
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
- `diabetic wound healing mechanism inflammation`
|
|
- `autophagy pathway cancer`
|
|
|
|
### Associations and Correlations
|
|
|
|
**Goal:** Find what factors are related
|
|
|
|
**Search components:**
|
|
- Variable A + Variable B + "association"
|
|
- Variable A + Variable B + "correlation"
|
|
- Variable A + "predicts" + Variable B
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
- `vitamin D cardiovascular disease association`
|
|
- `gut microbiome diversity predicts cognitive function`
|
|
|
|
### Interventions and Treatments
|
|
|
|
**Goal:** Evidence for what works
|
|
|
|
**Search components:**
|
|
- Intervention + condition + "efficacy"
|
|
- Intervention + condition + "randomized controlled trial"
|
|
- Intervention + condition + "treatment outcome"
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
- `probiotic intervention depression randomized controlled trial`
|
|
- `exercise intervention cognitive decline efficacy`
|
|
|
|
### Methods and Techniques
|
|
|
|
**Goal:** How to test hypothesis
|
|
|
|
**Search components:**
|
|
- Method name + application area
|
|
- "How to measure" + phenomenon
|
|
- Technique + validation
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
- `CRISPR screen cancer drug resistance`
|
|
- `measure protein-protein interaction methods`
|
|
|
|
### Analogous Systems
|
|
|
|
**Goal:** Find insights from related phenomena
|
|
|
|
**Search components:**
|
|
- Mechanism + different system
|
|
- Similar phenomenon + different organism/condition
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
- If studying plant-microbe symbiosis: search `nitrogen fixation rhizobia legumes`
|
|
- If studying drug resistance: search `antibiotic resistance evolution mechanisms`
|
|
|
|
## Evaluating Source Quality
|
|
|
|
### Primary Research Quality Indicators
|
|
|
|
**Strong quality signals:**
|
|
- Published in reputable journals
|
|
- Large sample sizes (for statistical power)
|
|
- Pre-registered studies (reduces bias)
|
|
- Appropriate controls and methods
|
|
- Consistent with other findings
|
|
- Transparent data and methods
|
|
|
|
**Red flags:**
|
|
- No peer review (use cautiously)
|
|
- Conflicts of interest not disclosed
|
|
- Methods not clearly described
|
|
- Extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence
|
|
- Contradicts large body of evidence without explanation
|
|
|
|
### Review Quality Indicators
|
|
|
|
**Systematic reviews (highest quality):**
|
|
- Pre-defined search strategy
|
|
- Explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria
|
|
- Quality assessment of included studies
|
|
- Quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis)
|
|
|
|
**Narrative reviews (variable quality):**
|
|
- Expert synthesis of field
|
|
- May have selection bias
|
|
- Useful for context and framing
|
|
- Check author expertise and citations
|
|
|
|
## Time Management in Literature Search
|
|
|
|
### Allocate Search Time Appropriately
|
|
|
|
**For straightforward hypotheses (30-60 min):**
|
|
- 1-2 broad review articles
|
|
- 3-5 targeted primary research papers
|
|
- Quick web search for recent developments
|
|
|
|
**For complex hypotheses (1-3 hours):**
|
|
- Multiple reviews for different aspects
|
|
- 10-15 primary research papers
|
|
- Systematic search across databases
|
|
- Citation mining from key papers
|
|
|
|
**For contentious topics (3+ hours):**
|
|
- Systematic review approach
|
|
- Identify competing perspectives
|
|
- Track historical development
|
|
- Cross-reference findings
|
|
|
|
### Diminishing Returns
|
|
|
|
**Signs you've searched enough:**
|
|
- Finding the same papers repeatedly
|
|
- New searches yield mostly irrelevant papers
|
|
- Sufficient evidence to support/contextualize hypotheses
|
|
- Multiple independent lines of evidence converge
|
|
|
|
**When to search more:**
|
|
- Major gaps in understanding remain
|
|
- Conflicting evidence needs resolution
|
|
- Hypothesis seems inconsistent with literature
|
|
- Need specific methodological information
|
|
|
|
## Documenting Search Results
|
|
|
|
### Information to Capture
|
|
|
|
**For each relevant paper:**
|
|
- Full citation (authors, year, journal, title)
|
|
- Key findings relevant to hypothesis
|
|
- Study design and methods
|
|
- Limitations noted by authors
|
|
- How it relates to hypothesis
|
|
|
|
### Organizing Findings
|
|
|
|
**Group by:**
|
|
- Supporting evidence for hypothesis A, B, C
|
|
- Methodological approaches
|
|
- Conflicting findings requiring explanation
|
|
- Gaps in current knowledge
|
|
|
|
**Synthesis notes:**
|
|
- What is well-established?
|
|
- What is controversial or uncertain?
|
|
- What analogies exist in other systems?
|
|
- What methods are commonly used?
|
|
|
|
## Practical Search Workflow
|
|
|
|
### Step-by-Step Process
|
|
|
|
1. **Define search goals (5 min):**
|
|
- What aspects of phenomenon need evidence?
|
|
- What would support or refute hypotheses?
|
|
|
|
2. **Broad review search (15-20 min):**
|
|
- Find 1-3 review articles
|
|
- Skim abstracts for relevance
|
|
- Note key concepts and terminology
|
|
|
|
3. **Targeted primary research (30-45 min):**
|
|
- Search for specific mechanisms/evidence
|
|
- Read abstracts, scan figures and conclusions
|
|
- Follow most promising references
|
|
|
|
4. **Cross-domain search (15-30 min):**
|
|
- Look for analogies in other systems
|
|
- Find recent preprints
|
|
- Identify emerging trends
|
|
|
|
5. **Citation mining (15-30 min):**
|
|
- Follow references from key papers
|
|
- Use "cited by" for recent work
|
|
- Identify seminal studies
|
|
|
|
6. **Synthesize findings (20-30 min):**
|
|
- Summarize evidence for each hypothesis
|
|
- Note patterns and contradictions
|
|
- Identify knowledge gaps
|
|
|
|
### Iteration and Refinement
|
|
|
|
**When initial search is insufficient:**
|
|
- Broaden terms if too few results
|
|
- Add specific mechanisms/pathways if too many results
|
|
- Try alternative terminology
|
|
- Search for related phenomena
|
|
- Consult review articles for better search terms
|
|
|
|
**Red flags requiring more search:**
|
|
- Only finding weak or indirect evidence
|
|
- All evidence comes from single lab or source
|
|
- Evidence seems inconsistent with basic principles
|
|
- Major aspects of phenomenon lack any relevant literature
|
|
|
|
## Common Search Pitfalls
|
|
|
|
### Pitfalls to Avoid
|
|
|
|
1. **Confirmation bias:** Only seeking evidence supporting preferred hypothesis
|
|
- **Solution:** Actively search for contradicting evidence
|
|
|
|
2. **Recency bias:** Only considering recent work, missing foundational studies
|
|
- **Solution:** Include historical searches, track development of ideas
|
|
|
|
3. **Too narrow:** Missing relevant work due to restrictive terms
|
|
- **Solution:** Use OR operators, try alternative terminology
|
|
|
|
4. **Too broad:** Overwhelmed by irrelevant results
|
|
- **Solution:** Add specific terms, use filters, combine concepts with AND
|
|
|
|
5. **Single database:** Missing important work in other fields
|
|
- **Solution:** Search both PubMed and general web, try domain-specific databases
|
|
|
|
6. **Stopping too soon:** Insufficient evidence to ground hypotheses
|
|
- **Solution:** Set minimum targets (e.g., 2 reviews + 5 primary papers per hypothesis aspect)
|
|
|
|
7. **Cherry-picking:** Citing only supportive papers
|
|
- **Solution:** Represent full spectrum of evidence, acknowledge contradictions
|
|
|
|
## Special Cases
|
|
|
|
### Emerging Topics (Limited Literature)
|
|
|
|
**When little published work exists:**
|
|
- Search for analogous phenomena in related systems
|
|
- Look for preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv)
|
|
- Find conference abstracts and posters
|
|
- Identify theoretical frameworks that may apply
|
|
- Note the limited evidence in hypothesis generation
|
|
|
|
### Controversial Topics (Conflicting Literature)
|
|
|
|
**When evidence is contradictory:**
|
|
- Systematically document both sides
|
|
- Look for methodological differences explaining conflict
|
|
- Check for temporal trends (has understanding shifted?)
|
|
- Identify what would resolve the controversy
|
|
- Generate hypotheses explaining the discrepancy
|
|
|
|
### Interdisciplinary Topics
|
|
|
|
**When spanning multiple fields:**
|
|
- Search each field's primary databases
|
|
- Use field-specific terminology for each domain
|
|
- Look for bridging papers that cite across fields
|
|
- Consider consulting domain experts
|
|
- Translate concepts between disciplines carefully
|
|
|
|
## Integration with Hypothesis Generation
|
|
|
|
### Using Literature to Inform Hypotheses
|
|
|
|
**Direct applications:**
|
|
- Established mechanisms to apply to new contexts
|
|
- Known pathways relevant to phenomenon
|
|
- Similar phenomena in related systems
|
|
- Validated methods for testing
|
|
|
|
**Indirect applications:**
|
|
- Analogies from different systems
|
|
- Theoretical frameworks to apply
|
|
- Gaps suggesting novel mechanisms
|
|
- Contradictions requiring resolution
|
|
|
|
### Balancing Literature Dependence
|
|
|
|
**Too literature-dependent:**
|
|
- Hypotheses merely restate known mechanisms
|
|
- No novel insights or predictions
|
|
- "Hypotheses" are actually established facts
|
|
|
|
**Too literature-independent:**
|
|
- Hypotheses ignore relevant evidence
|
|
- Propose implausible mechanisms
|
|
- Reinvent already-tested ideas
|
|
- Inconsistent with established principles
|
|
|
|
**Optimal balance:**
|
|
- Grounded in existing evidence
|
|
- Extend understanding in novel ways
|
|
- Acknowledge both supporting and challenging evidence
|
|
- Generate testable predictions beyond current knowledge
|