ABSTRACT
Introduction Citation tracking (CT) collects references with citation relationships to pertinent references that are already known. This scoping review maps the benefit of and the tools and terminology used for CT in health-related systematic literature searching.
Methods We included methodological studies on evidence retrieval by CT in health-related literature searching without restrictions on study design, language, or publication date. We searched MEDLINE/Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL/EBSCOhost, LLISFT/EBSCOhost, LISTA/EBSCOhost, conducted web searching via Google Scholar, backward/forward CT of included studies and pertinent reviews, and contacting of experts. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction and analysis were performed by one reviewer and checked by another.
Results We screened 11,861 references and included 47 studies published between 1985 and 2021. Most studies (96%) assessed the benefit of CT either as supplementary or stand-alone search method. Added value of CT for evidence retrieval was found by 96% of them. Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index were the most common citation indexes used. Application of multiple citation indexes in parallel, co-citing or co-cited references, CT iterations, or software tools was rare. CT terminology was heterogeneous and frequently ambiguous.
Conclusions The use of CT showed an added value in most of the identified studies; however, the benefit of CT in health-related systematic literature searching likely depends on multiple factors that could not be assessed with certainty. Application, terminology, and reporting are heterogeneous. Based on our results, we plan a Delphi study to develop standard recommendations for the use and reporting of CT.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
ORCID, eMail
Julian Hirt, julian.hirt{at}unibas.ch
Thomas Nordhausen, thomas.nordhausen{at}uk-halle.de
Christian Appenzeller-Herzog, christian.appenzeller{at}unibas.ch
Hannah Ewald, hannah.ewald{at}unibas.ch
Funding None.
Data availability statement All data analyzed in this review is contained in the manuscript and its supporting information.
Ethical approval Not necessary for this study.
Competing interests None declared.
Supporting information Supporting information are available from the publisher’s website and contains (1.) database-specific search strategies and (2.) the raw data set that has been used for our analyses.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
