Grey Literature Search
Grey literature comprises documents and data not published through conventional commercial channels—including theses, government reports, clinical trial registries, conference abstracts, organizational policy documents, and working papers. Unlike journal articles, grey literature is not indexed in MEDLINE or Scopus and often lacks peer review. However, it is crucial for systematic reviews because it may contain null or negative findings that are less likely to be published (publication bias). Systematic grey literature searching is now a standard component of evidence synthesis and is recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, PRISMA, and other methodological guidelines.
원본 기록
방법의 원본 기록에서 그대로 복사된 인용입니다. 이로부터 수준별 검증이 추론되지 않습니다.
- Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In J. P. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.0.2, Chapter 13). The Cochrane Collaboration. · URL
- Wood, A. M., Egger, M., Gluud, L. L., Schulz, K. F., Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Gluud, C. (2008). Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ, 336(7644), 601–605. · DOI 10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD
- Mahood, Q., Van Eerd, D., & Irvin, E. (2014). Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 353–364. · DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1106
큐레이션된 주장
각각 자체 평가와 함께 증거 원장에 유지된 주장입니다.
원장에 주장 평가가 없는 경우 이 보기에서는 주장 평가를 만들지 않습니다.
관련 방법
방법 그래프에서 생성되었으며 기계가 제안한 관계로 표시됩니다 — 증거 주장이 추론되지 않습니다.