.jpg){kind=link}
- Published
- Updated
A search that retrieves many records has not necessarily found important studies. Known eligible publications can provide control examples for identifying obvious gaps in a query. This approach does not prove completeness; it helps reveal when the method misses a relevant target.
Scope of the decision
Justify the selection of control publications. Choosing only easy records using the same trade name does not challenge conceptual coverage. Suitable examples with different terminology, earlier model names or important safety questions may help. Overfitting the query to one known set can still miss new evidence.
Worked review
For example, an important clinical-context paper does not appear in the search. Review shows that an earlier device name or relevant clinical term was absent. The team develops the query appropriately and appraises additional retrieval rather than merely adding the missing paper’s exact title to the search.
Practical checks
- Explain why each control publication is relevant and suitably representative.
- Investigate whether a missed record reflects source coverage or query design.
- Assess new coverage and limitations introduced by a query change.
Acceptance and limits
Acceptance depends on an understandable method rationale as well as finding the selected examples. Retrieving every control paper does not mean that all unknown relevant publications were identified. Consider the result alongside other coverage and bias checks rather than overstating one success percentage.
Frequently asked questions
- Should control papers be chosen randomly?
- Choose them for the defined purpose and explain representation and selection limits.
- Does a missing paper prove a query error?
- Not always. It may be absent from the database or outside the date scope.