Systematic Searching for Environmental Evidence: A Comprehensive Guide to Robust Methods and Emerging Tools

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide to systematic searching methodologies for environmental evidence, tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals. It covers foundational principles of transparent and reproducible searches, detailed methodological applications using PECO/PICO frameworks, strategies to overcome common biases and errors, and the validation of emerging tools like AI-assisted screening. By addressing these four core intents, the article aims to enhance the rigor and efficiency of evidence synthesis in environmental health, ultimately supporting more reliable risk assessment and policy decisions.

The Pillars of Systematic Environmental Evidence Searching: Principles, Importance, and Core Concepts

Defining Systematic Searching in Environmental Evidence Synthesis

Systematic searching is a foundational component of evidence synthesis, designed to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all available relevant evidence on a specific research question. For environmental management and policy, this process provides the rigorous, structured foundation necessary for evidence-informed decision-making in the face of unprecedented threats to the natural world [1]. Unlike traditional literature reviews, systematic searching follows a predefined, transparent, and reproducible methodology to minimize bias and ensure comprehensive coverage of the available literature [2]. This protocol outlines the detailed methodologies and applications of systematic searching within the broader context of environmental evidence synthesis methods research, providing researchers, scientists, and professionals with a structured framework for conducting robust evidence reviews.

Theoretical Framework and Key Principles

Systematic searching for environmental evidence is governed by several core principles that distinguish it from informal literature searching. These principles ensure the reliability and utility of the resulting synthesis.

The process requires comprehensive coverage to capture a maximum of the available relevant documented bibliographic evidence, which includes not only journal articles but also scientific papers, abstracts, reports, book chapters, thesis, and internet pages [2]. This is vital because failing to include relevant information may lead to inaccurate or skewed conclusions, or changes in conclusions when omitted information is later added [2].

Transparency and reproducibility are equally critical; every step of the search process must be documented with sufficient detail to allow repetition by other researchers [2]. Furthermore, the process must actively work to minimize biases, including those linked to the search itself, as they may significantly affect synthesis outputs [2]. Key biases to mitigate include language bias (where significant results are more likely published in English), prevailing paradigm bias (where studies supporting dominant paradigms are more easily discoverable), temporal bias (where older articles are overlooked), and publication bias (where statistically significant 'positive' results are more likely published than 'negative' ones) [2].

Protocol: Systematic Search Process

A rigorous systematic search follows a structured, stepwise process. The following workflow and detailed methodology ensure a comprehensive and unbiased approach.

Formulating the Research Question and Search Framework

The initial and most critical step involves defining a focused research question structured into discrete concepts. The PICO/PECO framework is commonly used for this purpose in environmental evidence synthesis [2]:

• Population: The subjects, ecosystems, or species being studied
• Exposure/Intervention: The environmental exposure, pressure, or management intervention
• Comparator: The reference condition or alternative for comparison
• Outcome: The measured effects, outcomes, or endpoints of interest

Additional elements like Context or Setting (e.g., "tropical," "experimental") may be added to narrow the question scope. However, geographical elements are often more efficiently handled as eligibility criteria during screening rather than as search terms [2].

Developing the Search Strategy

Once the question is structured, the search strategy is developed through systematic identification of search terms and their organization into effective search strings.

Term Identification: For each PICO/PECO concept, compile a comprehensive list of relevant keywords, including synonyms, related terms, alternative spellings, and lexical variations. This can be achieved through team brainstorming, reviewing relevant articles, and consulting specialized resources and thesauri [3] [2].

Search String Development: Combine identified terms using Boolean operators:

• OR broadens search results by connecting synonyms and related terms within the same concept
• AND narrows results by requiring the presence of terms from different concepts
• NOT excludes terms containing specific words (use cautiously to avoid omitting relevant literature) [3]

Database-Specific Syntax: Adapt search strings for the specific syntax and functionalities of each database, such as Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in PubMed or Emtree in Embase, which help account for terminology variations by grouping different terms under standardized headings [3].

Database Selection and Supplementary Search Methods

A comprehensive search requires multiple information sources. The table below outlines key databases and supplementary methods for environmental evidence synthesis.

Table 1: Information Sources for Systematic Searching in Environmental Evidence

Source Type	Examples	Utility in Environmental Evidence
Bibliographic Databases	Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, GreenFILE, AGRICOLA	Provide access to peer-reviewed literature across disciplines [3] [2]
Specialized Resources	Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Library, Cochrane Library	Include systematic reviews and evidence syntheses [1] [3]
Grey Literature	Organizational websites, government reports, theses, conference proceedings	Captures unpublished or non-commercial literature reducing publication bias [2] [4]
Supplementary Methods	Reference list checking, citation searching, contact with experts	Identifies additional sources not found through database searching [4]

Search Validation and Peer Review

Before executing the final search, the strategy should undergo peer review, ideally following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) framework. This process helps identify missing search terms, correct syntax errors, and refine the overall search approach, thereby minimizing errors and biases [2].

Data Management and Reporting

Documenting the Search Process

Comprehensive documentation is essential for transparency and reproducibility. The reporting should include:

• All databases searched with platform names, search dates, and date coverage
• Complete search strategies for all databases, showing the final search strings
• Details of supplementary search methods used and resources consulted
• The number of records identified from each source, before and after de-duplication [4]

A Search Summary Table (SST) provides a structured approach to report search methods and effectiveness metrics, offering valuable insights for future searching. Key metrics to include are summarized below.

Table 2: Search Effectiveness Metrics for Systematic Reviews

Metric	Definition	Calculation	Interpretation
Sensitivity/Recall	Proportion of relevant references identified by the search	(Relevant references found by search / Total relevant references found by all methods) × 100	Higher values indicate more comprehensive coverage [4]
Precision	Proportion of retrieved references that are relevant	(Relevant references found by search / Total references retrieved by search) × 100	Higher values indicate greater search efficiency [4]
Number Needed to Read (NNR)	Average number of records screened to identify one included study	1 / Precision	Lower values indicate less screening workload per included study [4]
Yield	Total references retrieved by the search	Count of records from each database	Helps assess database productivity [4]
Unique References	References found only in one specific database	Count of references not found in any other database	Informs resource allocation for future searches [4]

The Researcher's Toolkit for Systematic Searching

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Systematic Searching

Tool/Resource	Function/Application	Considerations
Boolean Operators	Combine search terms using AND, OR, NOT to refine results	NOT should be used cautiously as it may exclude relevant records [3]
Controlled Vocabularies	Standardized terminology systems for consistent indexing and retrieval	Map natural language terms to controlled vocabularies like MeSH or Emtree [3]
Reference Management Software	Store, organize, and deduplicate search results; facilitate screening	Examples include EndNote, Zotero, Rayyan; essential for handling large result sets [4]
Search Summary Table	Structured framework for recording and reporting search methods and metrics	Enables assessment of search effectiveness and informs future search strategies [4]
Deduplication Tools/Methods	Identify and remove duplicate records from multiple database searches	Critical for accurate reporting of unique records identified; can be automated or manual [4]
BSJ-02-162	Cdk4/6-IN-11|CDK4/6 Inhibitor|For Research Use	Cdk4/6-IN-11 is a potent CDK4/6 inhibitor for cancer research. This product is For Research Use Only and is not intended for diagnostic or therapeutic use.
TSC24	TSC24, MF:C15H20Cl2N4S, MW:359.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Methodological Variations and Special Considerations

Managing Multiple Languages

Environmental evidence synthesis often requires consideration of literature in languages beyond English. Two main challenges exist: translating search terms to capture non-English articles, and processing articles in languages not spoken by the research team. While many international databases index non-English literature using English terms, regional and national databases may require searching in their primary languages. The choice of language(s) should be reported in the protocol and final synthesis to enable repetition and updating [2].

Systematic Maps vs. Systematic Reviews

The search methodology may vary depending on whether the goal is a systematic map or systematic review. Systematic maps aim to catalogue and describe the available evidence base, often requiring broader searches, while systematic reviews focus on answering a specific question with a more narrow scope but greater depth of analysis [2].

Systematic searching represents a methodologically rigorous approach to evidence identification that forms the critical foundation for reliable environmental evidence synthesis. By following structured protocols for question formulation, search strategy development, multi-source searching, and comprehensive documentation, researchers can minimize biases and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of their reviews. The continuous refinement of search methodologies through the implementation of search summary tables and effectiveness metrics contributes to the advancing field of evidence synthesis methods, ultimately supporting more informed environmental policy and management decisions in an era of unprecedented ecological challenges.

Quantitative Data on Search Strategy Components

Table 1: Key Elements of a Reproducible Search Strategy for Environmental Evidence

Component	Description	Quantitative Guidance & Purpose
Bibliographic Databases	Electronic indexes of published scientific literature.	Searches should be performed across at least 2-3 databases to reduce the risk of source-based bias and maximize coverage of relevant articles [5] [2].
Search String Syntax	Combination of search terms using Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT).	A well-structured string is critical for transparency. The use of parentheses to group synonymous terms (e.g., (OR "climate change" OR "global warming")) is essential for logic and reproducibility [2].
Search Terms	Individual words or phrases capturing the review's core concepts.	Derived from the structured question (e.g., PECO). The process should be documented, including all tested terms to minimize bias from omitted terminology [2].
Grey Literature Searches	Inclusion of unpublished or non-commercial literature (e.g., theses, reports).	Actively seeking grey literature is a primary method to reduce publication bias, as it includes studies with non-significant or null results that are less likely to be published [2] [6].

Experimental Protocols for Rigorous Searching

Protocol: Formulating a Research Question Using the PECO/PICO Framework

The foundation of a unbiased search is a structured research question.

• Objective: To define clear and unambiguous key elements for building a search strategy.
• Procedure:
  • Define the Population (P) or Subject (S): Specify the organisms, ecosystems, or environmental entities of interest. Example: Freshwater fish populations in boreal forests.
  • Define the Exposure (E) or Intervention (I): Specify the environmental factor, pollutant, or management action. Example: Exposure to agricultural runoff.
  • Define the Comparator (C): Specify the alternative condition or control. Example: Absence of agricultural runoff or a reference site.
  • Define the Outcome (O): Specify the measured effect or endpoint. Example: Mortality rate or reproductive success.
• Application: The PECO elements are then translated into search terms and strings [2].

Protocol: Implementing a Two-Stage "Double Diamond" Search Process

This enhanced Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method reduces leftover bias in identifying research gaps [7].

• Objective: To systematically formulate research questions and optimize review quality by first synthesizing existing reviews.
• Procedure:
  • First Diamond - Review of Reviews:
    • Discover: Conduct a broad scoping search for existing systematic and narrative review articles on the general topic of interest.
    • Define: Synthesize findings from these reviews to pinpoint precise knowledge gaps and formulate a specific, evidence-based primary research question.
  • Second Diamond - Review of Empirical Literature:
    • Develop: Using the defined research question from stage one, develop a comprehensive search strategy to identify primary empirical studies.
    • Deliver: Execute the search, screen results, extract data, and synthesize findings from the primary literature to answer the research question [7].
• Validation: This method has been validated through practical application to reduce risks and bias in the SLR process [7].

Protocol: Peer-Reviewing the Search Strategy

A key step to minimize errors and bias before executing the final search [2].

• Objective: To identify unintentional errors, misspellings, and biases in the search strategy.
• Procedure:
  • Prepare a draft of the full search strategy, including the final search string for one database.
  • Submit the strategy for review to a second information specialist or a subject-matter expert not directly involved in developing the strategy. This can be done within the project team or with an external collaborator.
  • The reviewer checks for completeness of search terms, appropriateness of Boolean logic, and potential sources of bias (e.g., overlooking key terms or databases).
  • Incorporate feedback and finalize the strategy, documenting the peer-review process [2].

Visual Workflows for Systematic Searching

Systematic Search Workflow

Double Diamond Approach (DDA) in SLR

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Evidence Synthesis

Tool / Resource	Function in the Systematic Review Process
Bibliographic Databases (e.g., PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science)	Provide comprehensive access to peer-reviewed scientific literature across disciplines. Searching multiple databases is essential to minimize database-specific bias [5] [2].
Reference Management Software (e.g., EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley)	Streamlines the collection of search results, identification and removal of duplicate records, and organization of references for screening [5].
Screening and Data Extraction Tools (e.g., Covidence, Rayyan)	Web-based platforms designed to facilitate the title/abstract and full-text screening phases by multiple reviewers, as well as subsequent data extraction, enhancing efficiency and reducing error [5].
Grey Literature Sources (e.g., Institutional repositories, thesis databases)	Provide access to unpublished or non-commercially published documents (e.g., reports, theses), which is a critical step for mitigating publication bias [2].
Peer-Reviewed Search Protocol	A pre-defined, written plan for the search strategy that is reviewed by a second expert. This is a methodological "reagent" to prevent errors and biases in search term selection and syntax [2].

Core Terminology and Definitions

In the context of systematic searching for environmental evidence synthesis, precise terminology is fundamental to developing reproducible and comprehensive search methodologies. The table below defines and distinguishes the core concepts.

Table 1: Core Terminology in Systematic Searching

Term	Definition	Role in Systematic Searching
Search Terms	The individual keywords, phrases, or vocabulary words used to capture the key concepts of a research question [8].	The basic building blocks of a search. They include both natural language keywords and controlled vocabulary index terms [8].
Search String	A single, executable line of search syntax that combines search terms for one conceptual element using Boolean operators (e.g., OR) [9].	Forms a conceptual block within a larger strategy. For example, a string may combine all synonyms for a single intervention.
Search Strategy	The complete, structured plan for retrieving studies, comprising multiple search strings combined with Boolean logic, along with specific database filters and limitations [8] [10].	The master protocol for a systematic search. It is tailored for each database and designed to be as comprehensive as possible [8].

Experimental Protocol: Developing a Systematic Search Strategy

This protocol provides a detailed methodology for constructing a systematic search strategy, tailored for evidence synthesis in environmental health and evidence-based policy [11] [12].

Pre-Search Planning and Scoping

• Define the Review Question: Establish a clear, focused, and structured research question. Frameworks like PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) are often used as guidance, though the key concepts for the search may be grouped differently [9].
• Determine Key Elements: Identify the essential concepts from the research question that will form the basis of the search. Use a plot of specificity and importance to decide which elements are critical to include to maintain a balance between sensitivity and precision [9].
• Select Databases and Sources: Choose bibliographic databases relevant to environmental science (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase) and plan for grey literature searches to mitigate publication bias [8]. The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence provides guidance on standard sources [12].

Search Strategy Construction Workflow

The following workflow, which can be implemented using tools like Covidence for managing results, outlines the iterative process of building a systematic search strategy [8].

2.2.1. Identify Search Terms [8] [9]

• Index Terms: In the selected database's thesaurus (e.g., Emtree in Embase, MeSH in MEDLINE), identify controlled vocabulary terms that precisely match the key concepts.
• Keywords: For each key concept, compile a comprehensive list of free-text synonyms, spelling variants, acronyms, and related terms. Use the thesaurus's entry terms and review known relevant articles to identify additional keywords.

2.2.2. Develop Search Strings [9]

• For each key concept, create a single search string by combining all identified index terms and keywords using the Boolean operator OR. This groups all synonymous terms for a concept.

2.2.3. Build the Complete Search Strategy [8]

• Combine the individual search strings for each key concept using the Boolean operator AND.
• Incorporate necessary search syntax, including:
  • Field Codes: To specify where the search should run (e.g., ti,ab for title and abstract).
  • Parentheses: To nest terms and control the order of execution.
  • Truncation: To capture word variations (e.g., forest* for forest, forests, forestry).
  • Wildcards: To account for spelling differences (e.g., wom#n for woman, women).

2.2.4. Optimize and Evaluate [9]

• Test the preliminary search strategy by verifying if it retrieves a set of known key publications.
• Check for errors and refine the strategy iteratively to improve sensitivity and precision.

2.2.5. Translate and Execute [9]

• Adapt the final search strategy for the syntax and thesauri of all other selected databases.
• Run the searches, record the date and number of results for each database, and export all references to a systematic review management tool.

Data Presentation: Quantitative Analysis of Search Results

Systematic review searches aim for high sensitivity, retrieving a large volume of records that must be screened. The following table summarizes the quantitative outcomes from a typical search process, as visualized in a PRISMA flow diagram [8].

Table 2: Quantitative Data from a Systematic Search and Screening Process

Metric	Description	Typical Value (Example)
Records Identified	Total studies retrieved from all databases and other sources.	Varies by topic (e.g., 10,000+)
Records Screened	Number of studies after duplicates removed, screened by title and abstract.	~9,500
Full-Text Assessed	Number of studies retrieved for full-text eligibility evaluation.	~250
Studies Included	Final number of studies meeting all criteria and included in the synthesis.	~65

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools and Resources for Systematic Searching

Item	Category	Function
Bibliographic Databases	Information Source	Provide access to indexed scientific literature. Essential databases for environmental evidence include Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus [9].
Systematic Review Software	Management Tool	Platforms like Covidence help manage the screening process, track decisions, and resolve conflicts among reviewers [8].
Thesauri	Vocabulary Tool	Controlled vocabularies like Emtree and MeSH provide standardized index terms, improving the precision and recall of searches [8] [9].
Text Document Log	Documentation	A text document used to develop and record the search strategy ensures the process is accountable, reproducible, and easily translatable between databases [9].
(R)-OY-101	(R)-OY-101, MF:C27H31NO4, MW:433.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
hCAIX-IN-5	(E)-3-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(2-oxochromen-6-yl)prop-2-enamide|High-Purity	(E)-3-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(2-oxochromen-6-yl)prop-2-enamide is a high-purity research chemical for laboratory use. This product is For Research Use Only and is not intended for human or veterinary use.

Application Notes

Rationale and Evidence Base

In the specialized domain of systematic searching for environmental evidence, the inclusion of librarians and information specialists (LIS) on research teams is a critical success factor, not merely a recommended practice. These professionals possess unique expertise in designing comprehensive, transparent, and reproducible search strategies, which are fundamental to the integrity of evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews and maps. Their involvement directly addresses methodological challenges inherent in environmental evidence synthesis, including minimizing biases like publication bias, language bias, and prevailing paradigm bias, which can significantly affect the findings of a review if not properly mitigated [13]. Quantitative analyses demonstrate that LIS involvement enhances the quality of the peer-review process itself. When acting as methodological peer-reviewers, LIS make a higher proportion of comments on methodological issues compared to subject peer-reviewers, and authors are more likely to implement their suggested changes [14]. Furthermore, in editorial decision-making, journal editors are more inclined to follow the recommendations of methodological peer-reviewers, underscoring the value of their specialized input in maintaining scholarly rigor [14].

Key Impact Areas

The integration of LIS professionals impacts several critical phases of the research process:

• Search Strategy Development: They ensure searches are structured using frameworks like PICO/PECO and are optimized for multiple bibliographic databases [13].
• Bias Mitigation: They proactively plan searches to uncover grey literature and non-English publications, reducing the risk of publication and language biases [13].
• Methodological Peer-Review: Their segmented peer-review of search methodologies elevates the overall quality of evidence synthesis publications before they enter the scholarly record [14].
• Tool Proficiency: They are adept at using specialized software for search management (e.g., DistillerSR) and data extraction (e.g., DEXTR), which streamlines the systematic review process [15].

Quantitative Evidence of Impact

The following table summarizes key quantitative findings from a study on the impact of librarians and information specialists serving as methodological peer-reviewers [14].

Table 1: Impact of Methodological Peer-Review by Librarians and Information Specialists

Metric	Methodological Peer-Reviewers (LIS)	Subject Peer-Reviewers
Number of Reviewer Reports Analyzed	25	30
Mean Number of Reviews per Manuscript	4.2	4.2
Focus of Comments	More comments on methodologies	Fewer methodological comments
Author Implementation of Changes	52 out of 65 changes (80%)	51 out of 82 changes (62%)
Recommendation to Reject Submissions	7 times	4 times
Editor Following of Recommendation	9 times	3 times

Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Integrating LIS into an Evidence Synthesis Team

This protocol details the steps for the meaningful integration of a librarian or information specialist into a research team conducting a systematic review of environmental evidence.

Phase 1: Project Initiation and Protocol Development

• Team Assembly: Identify and formally include a qualified LIS professional as a core member of the research team at the project's inception [14].
• Protocol Development: Collaboratively develop and finalize the systematic review protocol. The LIS leads the writing of the search strategy section [16].
• Research Question Finalization: The LIS assists in refining the research question and defining the key concepts (e.g., using PICO/PECO) to ensure they are amenable to a systematic search [13].
• Eligibility Criteria: The team, guided by the LIS, establishes explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., date ranges, languages, study designs) to guide the search and screening process [16].
• Protocol Registration: Register the finalized protocol in a public registry (e.g., PROCEED, Open Science Framework) to enhance transparency and reduce duplication of effort [16].

Phase 2: Search Strategy Design and Execution

• Test-List Development: Create an independent test-list of known relevant articles to assist in assessing the performance of the search strategy [13].
• Vocabulary Development: The LIS identifies and documents controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH) and keywords for all key concepts.
• Search String Formulation: Construct and validate the final search string using Boolean and proximity operators, with syntax tailored for each database.
• Database Searching: Execute the search across multiple bibliographic databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus) as pre-specified in the protocol [15].
• Grey Literature Search: The LIS coordinates the search of grey literature sources, such as institutional repositories, clinical trial registries, and government reports [13].
• Search Documentation: Record and save the full search strategy for every database, including the date of search and number of results retrieved, to ensure reproducibility [13].

Phase 3: Methodological Peer-Review (Post-Submission)

• Journal Engagement: Encourage journal editors to implement a segmented peer-review process for evidence synthesis manuscripts, specifically inviting LIS as methodological peer-reviewers [14].
• Review Focus: The LIS peer-reviewer concentrates on evaluating the methodology sections, appraising the comprehensiveness and reproducibility of the search strategy, and checking for adherence to reporting guidelines like PRISMA or ROSES [14] [16].
• Tool Utilization: The LIS uses specialized checklists, such as the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) Evidence-Based Checklist, to ensure a rigorous evaluation [14].

Workflow Diagram

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow of a systematic review for environmental evidence, highlighting the critical contributions of the Librarian or Information Specialist at each stage.

This table details key tools, platforms, and resources that librarians and information specialists utilize to support systematic environmental evidence reviews.

Table 2: Key Reagent Solutions for Systematic Evidence Searching

Item Name	Type	Primary Function in Research
Bibliographic Databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus)	Digital Library	Provide access to a vast corpus of peer-reviewed literature and conference proceedings, forming the primary source for identifying relevant studies [15].
Reference Management Software (e.g., EndNote, Zotero)	Software	Enables efficient storage, organization, deduplication, and citation of references retrieved from multiple database searches.
Systematic Review Software (e.g., DistillerSR, DEXTR)	Web-based Platform	Facilitates the entire systematic review process, including screening of abstracts/full texts, data extraction, and project management in a collaborative environment [15].
PRESS Checklist	Methodological Tool	Provides an evidence-based framework for the peer-review of electronic search strategies to ensure their quality and avoid common errors [14].
Reporting Guidelines (e.g., PRISMA, ROSES)	Reporting Standard	Defines the minimum set of items to be reported in a systematic review or map to ensure transparency, completeness, and reproducibility [16].
Protocol Registries (e.g., PROCEED, OSF)	Online Repository	Platforms for registering and publishing a review protocol in advance to minimize duplication of effort and reduce reporting bias [16].

Systematic evidence synthesis represents a cornerstone of rigorous environmental research, providing a structured framework to collate and assess existing knowledge. The foundation of any high-quality synthesis—whether a systematic review or systematic map—is a comprehensively planned and meticulously documented search strategy [2]. A well-developed search strategy ensures the process is repeatable, fit for purpose, minimizes biases, and aims to capture a maximum number of relevant articles [2]. Failures in search planning can lead to the omission of crucial evidence, potentially resulting in inaccurate or skewed conclusions [2]. This application note provides detailed protocols for developing a systematic search strategy, from initial scoping to the execution of the final search, specifically contextualized within environmental evidence methods research.

The Scoping Phase

Purpose and Objectives

The scoping phase is an exploratory, iterative process conducted prior to the main search. Its primary purpose is to quickly assess the volume and nature of literature relevant to a broad topic of interest [2] [17]. Scoping helps to gauge the feasibility of the full evidence synthesis, informs the refinement of the review question, and aids in planning the necessary resources (e.g., team size, number of translators, document processing capacity) [2] [18]. Scoping searches can indicate whether a question is too broad, yielding an unmanageable number of hits, or too narrow, retrieving insufficient evidence, allowing for timely adjustment [18].

Experimental Protocol for Scoping

Procedure:

• Define Initial Question: Start with a broad, draft question relevant to the environmental topic (e.g., "What is the evidence on the impacts of microplastics on aquatic biota?").
• Select Preliminary Sources: Choose one or two major bibliographic databases relevant to environmental science for the initial scoping (e.g., Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus) [2] [18].
• Develop Simple Search Strings: Identify a minimal set of key search terms derived from the core concepts of the question. Combine these terms using basic Boolean operators (e.g., AND, OR).
  • Example: microplastic* AND aquatic AND (impact OR effect).
• Execute Test Searches: Run the simple search strings in the selected databases.
• Analyze Results: Review the retrieved records (titles and abstracts) to assess:
  • The approximate volume of literature.
  • The key terminology used in the field.
  • The presence of different study types and methodologies.
  • Potential knowledge clusters or gaps.
• Refine and Iterate: Based on the findings, refine the search terms, add synonyms, and adjust the question scope. Repeat the test searches until the project team has a clear understanding of the evidence landscape.

Developing the Full Search Strategy

Structuring the Research Question

A well-defined, structured research question is the critical blueprint for the entire search strategy. In environmental evidence, frameworks like PECO/PICO (Population, Exposure/Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) are commonly used to break down the question into discrete, searchable concepts [2] [17] [18]. Alternative frameworks may be more suitable depending on the research focus, as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: Frameworks for Structuring Systematic Review Questions in Environmental Sciences

Framework	Components	Best Suited For	Example in Environmental Research
PECO/PICO [18]	Population, Exposure/Intervention, Comparator, Outcome	Questions concerning the effects of an intervention or exposure [17].	P (Freshwater fish), E (Exposure to pesticide X), C (No exposure), O (Mortality, growth rates)
PO [17]	Population, Outcome	Questions on prevalence or occurrence.	P (European peatlands), O (Presence of heavy metal Y)
SPICE [18]	Setting, Perspective, Intervention/Interest, Comparison, Evaluation	Qualitative or mixed-methods research; useful for policy/management questions.	S (Urban watersheds), P (Local stakeholders), I (Implementation of buffer zones), C (No implementation), E (Perceived water quality improvement)
SPIDER [5] [18]	Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research Type	Qualitative and mixed-methods evidence synthesis [18].	S (Forest managers), PI (Adaptation to climate change), D (Interview studies), E (Reported barriers and facilitators), R (Qualitative)

Building the Search String

The search string is the operationalization of the structured question, combining search terms with Boolean and proximity operators.

Protocol for Search String Formulation:

• Term Harvesting: For each element of the chosen framework (e.g., P, E, O), brainstorm a comprehensive list of relevant search terms. Sources for terms include:
  • Keywords from articles identified during scoping.
  • Controlled vocabularies (e.g., MeSH in MEDLINE, thesaurus in CAB Abstracts).
  • Expert consultation within the project team.
• Group and Combine: Organize synonymous terms within each conceptual group using the Boolean operator OR.
  • Example Population Group: (fish OR trout OR salmon OR "aquatic biota")
• Combine Concepts: Link the different conceptual groups (P, E, O) using the Boolean operator AND.
  • Example Full String: (fish OR trout OR salmon) AND (microplastic* OR "plastic debris") AND (mortalit* OR growth OR bioaccumulation)
• Apply Syntax and Truncation: Use parentheses to nest terms and control logic. Use truncation (*) to capture word variants (e.g., toxic* retrieves toxin, toxins, toxicity).
• Peer Review: The search strategy should be peer-reviewed, for instance, using the PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies) guideline, to identify errors or missing terms [2].

A comprehensive search requires multiple bibliographic sources to minimize the risk of bias, as defined in Table 2 [2] [5]. Relying on a single database or only English-language literature can introduce systematic errors that skew the evidence base.

Table 2: Common Search Biases and Mitigation Strategies in Evidence Synthesis

Type of Bias	Description	Mitigation Strategy
Publication Bias [2]	Statistically significant ("positive") results are more likely to be published than non-significant ones.	Actively search for grey literature (theses, reports, conference proceedings) [2] [5].
Language Bias [2]	Studies with significant results are more likely to be published in English and are easier to access.	Search non-English language databases and do not restrict searches by language.
Database Bias [2]	No single database provides complete coverage of all relevant literature.	Search multiple, subject-relevant databases (at least 2-5) and use academic search engines [5].

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Systematic Searching

Tool / Resource	Function / Explanation
Bibliographic Databases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science) [5]	Provide indexed, peer-reviewed literature from a wide range of scientific journals. The primary source for published studies.
Grey Literature Databases (e.g., OpenGrey)	Provide access to non-commercially published material (e.g., technical reports, theses), crucial for mitigating publication bias [2].
Reference Management Software (e.g., Zotero, EndNote) [5]	Assists in collecting search results, removing duplicate records, and managing citations throughout the review process.
Screening Tools (e.g., Rayyan, Covidence) [5]	Web-based platforms that facilitate the title/abstract and full-text screening phases among multiple reviewers, enhancing efficiency and reducing error.

Search Execution and Documentation Protocol

The final search strategy is executed across all pre-defined sources. The process must be documented with sufficient detail to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

Workflow Overview:

The following diagram illustrates the key stages of the search process, from planning through to reporting.

Procedure:

• Final Search Execution: Run the finalized, peer-reviewed search strategy in all selected bibliographic databases and other sources (e.g., organizational websites for grey literature) within a narrow timeframe to maintain consistency.
• Record Search Details: For each source searched, document:
  • The name of the database or resource.
  • The platform or provider (e.g., Ovid, ProQuest).
  • The complete search string as run.
  • The date the search was conducted.
  • The number of records retrieved.
• Manage Results: Export all records from the searches into reference management software. Use the software's functionality to identify and remove duplicate records.
• Report the Search: The full search strategy, including all sources, search strings, and dates, must be presented in the final evidence synthesis report, often in an appendix, to meet transparency and reproducibility standards [2].

From Theory to Practice: A Step-by-Step Guide to Executing a Systematic Search

A well-structured research question is the critical first step in directing any scientific study, serving as the foundation for defining research objectives, conducting systematic reviews, and developing health guidance [19]. Within evidence-based practice, frameworks provide the necessary structure to formulate a focused, clear, and answerable question [18]. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) framework is the most established model for structuring clinical questions, particularly for therapeutic interventions [20] [21]. However, in fields such as environmental health, nutrition, and occupational health, where researchers often investigate unintentional exposures rather than planned interventions, the PECO framework (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) is increasingly adopted [19] [21]. This adaptation replaces "Intervention" with "Exposure" to more accurately represent the nature of the research, exploring associations between environmental or other exposures and health outcomes [21]. Proper application of these frameworks ensures that the research purpose is clearly defined, informs study design and inclusion criteria, and facilitates the interpretation of findings [19].

The PECO Framework: Detailed Methodology and Application

Core Components and Differentiation from PICO

The PECO framework is specifically designed for questions that aim to explore the association between an exposure and a health outcome. Its components are defined as follows [19] [21]:

• Population/Patient/Problem (P): The group of individuals, defined by characteristics such as age, sex, health status, or occupation, who are the focus of the investigation. In environmental health, this can also include animal populations.
• Exposure (E): The unintentional or intentional contact with a substance, agent, or environmental factor that is being investigated for its potential health effects. This differs from a planned "Intervention" in PICO.
• Comparator (C): The reference against which the exposure is compared. This could be a group with no exposure, a group with a different level or type of exposure, or a group with background exposure levels.
• Outcome (O): The measurable health effects or changes of interest that are potentially influenced by the exposure.

The transition from PICO to PECO is essential for accurately framing questions in environmental and public health, as these fields deal with fundamental differences in defining exposures and comparators compared to clinical interventions [19]. Organizations like the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, the National Toxicology Program, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emphasize the role of the PECO question to guide the systematic review process for exposure-related questions [19].

Paradigmatic Scenarios for PECO Question Formulation

Research context and what is known about the exposure-outcome relationship influence how a PECO question is phrased. The framework can be operationalized through five common scenarios, which guide the definition of the exposure and comparator, particularly in relation to exposure cut-offs [19].

Table 1: Scenarios for Formulating PECO Questions in Environmental Health

Scenario Context	Approprise PECO Approach	Example PECO Question
1. Exploring Association & Dose-Effect	Explore the shape of the relationship between the exposure and outcome; comparator is an incremental increase.	Among newborns, what is the incremental effect of a 10 dB increase in noise exposure during gestation on postnatal hearing impairment? [19]
2. Evaluating Data-Driven Cut-offs	Use cut-offs (e.g., tertiles, quartiles) defined by the distribution in the identified studies.	Among newborns, what is the effect of the highest dB exposure compared to the lowest dB exposure during pregnancy on postnatal hearing impairment? [19]
3. Evaluating Externally-Defined Cut-offs	Use mean cut-offs or standards identified from other populations or research.	Among commercial pilots, what is the effect of occupational noise exposure compared to noise exposure experienced in other occupations on hearing impairment? [19]
4. Identifying a Protective Cut-off	Use existing exposure cut-offs associated with known health outcomes.	Among industrial workers, what is the effect of exposure to < 80 dB compared to ≥ 80 dB on hearing impairment? [19]
5. Evaluating an Intervention to Reduce Exposure	Select the comparator based on exposure cut-offs achievable through an intervention.	Among the general population, what is the effect of an intervention that reduces noise levels by 20 dB compared to no intervention on hearing impairment? [19]

These scenarios illustrate that the PECO framework is flexible and can be adapted based on the research phase—from initial exploration of an association to informing specific regulatory or intervention decisions [19].

Experimental Protocol for Implementing a PECO-Based Systematic Review

Protocol Development and Scoping

Before beginning a systematic review, a detailed protocol must be developed. This protocol outlines the study methodology and serves as a roadmap, reducing the risk of bias by pre-defining the methods. Key elements of a protocol include [18]:

• Background and Rationale: Provide context for the review and the PECO question.
• Research Question and Aims: State the clearly formulated PECO question.
• Eligibility (Inclusion/Exclusion) Criteria: Specify attributes that studies must have (or not have) to be included, based on the PECO components.
• Methods: Detail the search strategy, quality assessment (risk of bias) tools, data extraction processes, and methods for data synthesis and analysis.
• Timeframe: Establish a project schedule.

Early scoping searches using simple terms in relevant databases are recommended to identify key papers, understand the topic landscape, and gauge the volume of existing literature, which helps in refining the PECO question [18]. The protocol should be discussed with supervisors and experts and is often registered in a public database like PROSPERO to ensure transparency and avoid duplication of effort [18].

Search Strategy, Study Selection, and Data Extraction

The PECO framework directly informs the subsequent steps of the systematic review. The following workflow diagram outlines the key stages from protocol registration to evidence synthesis.

Systematic Search Strategy: The PECO elements are used to identify key search terms and build a comprehensive, reproducible search strategy for multiple bibliographic databases [18] [20]. This involves using controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH terms) and free-text keywords for each PECO component.

Study Screening and Selection: Studies are screened against the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, which are derived directly from the PECO question [19] [11]. This is typically done in two phases: title/abstract screening and full-text review.

Data Extraction and Critical Appraisal: A standardized data extraction form is used to collect relevant information from included studies. This includes specific details about the Population, Exposure and Comparator metrics, Outcome measures, and study results [11]. Simultaneously, the methodological quality or risk of bias of each study is assessed using appropriate critical appraisal tools [11] [21].

Data Synthesis, Evidence Mapping, and Visualization

The synthesis step involves analyzing and summarizing the extracted data. For a PECO-based review, this may involve:

• Narrative Synthesis: A qualitative summary of the findings, structured around the PECO elements.
• Meta-Analysis: A statistical method to combine quantitative results from multiple studies, if the studies are sufficiently homogeneous.
• Systematic Evidence Maps (SEMs): A form of evidence synthesis that provides a structured overview of a research landscape, categorizing evidence to identify trends and gaps without necessarily performing a quantitative synthesis [11] [22]. SEMs often use visual tools like heatmaps to enhance usability.

The choice of data visualization is critical for effectively communicating results. The table below compares common visualization methods used in evidence synthesis.

Table 2: Data Visualization Tools for Evidence Synthesis

Visualization Type	Primary Use Case in Evidence Synthesis	Best Practices
Evidence Heatmaps	Visualizing the volume and distribution of evidence across multiple PECO categories (e.g., exposure-outcome pairs) [11].	Use color intensity to represent the number of studies or the strength of findings.
Bar Graphs	Comparing quantitative values (e.g., effect sizes) between discrete groups or categories [23] [24].	Order bars meaningfully; ensure axes begin at zero for accurate perception.
Line Graphs	Depicting trends or relationships between variables over time or across exposure gradients [23] [24].	Use for continuous data; clearly label axes and different data series.
Tables	Presenting precise numerical values and detailed information (e.g., study characteristics, extracted data) where exact figures are key [25] [24].	Avoid crowding; use clear titles and footnotes; make them self-explanatory.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Evidence Synthesis

Executing a high-quality systematic review requires a suite of methodological tools and platforms. The following table details key resources that form the modern scientist's toolkit for this type of research.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Systematic Reviews and Evidence Synthesis

Tool / Resource	Function and Application
PECO/PICO Framework	Foundational reagent for structuring the research question, defining the scope, and guiding all subsequent steps of the review [19] [20].
Systematic Review Protocol	The experimental blueprint that pre-defines the objectives and methods, safeguarding against bias and ensuring reproducibility [18].
PROSPERO Database	International prospective register of systematic reviews. Registration here provides a unique identifier, promotes transparency, and prevents duplication [18].
Bibliographic Databases (e.g., PubMed, EMBASE)	Primary sources for executing the systematic search strategy to identify relevant literature.
Rayyan, Covidence	Software tools designed to facilitate the title/abstract and full-text screening process, allowing for blinded collaboration between reviewers.
CASP / Risk of Bias Tools	Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and other standardized checklists used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias in individual studies [21].
RevMan (Review Manager)	Software used for Cochrane reviews and other meta-analyses for data management, meta-analysis, and creating 'Summary of findings' tables [18].
GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations)	A framework for rating the quality of a body of evidence and the strength of recommendations, moving from evidence to decision-making.
SHR902275	SHR902275, MF:C26H23F3N4O4, MW:512.5 g/mol
RMC-3943	RMC-3943, MF:C18H22Cl2N6S, MW:425.4 g/mol

The rigorous application of the PECO framework is indispensable for conducting methodologically sound evidence synthesis in environmental health and related fields. By providing a clear structure for formulating the research question, PECO directly shapes the entire systematic review process—from protocol development and search strategy to data extraction and synthesis. Mastering this framework, along with its associated tools and protocols, empowers researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals to generate high-quality, reliable evidence. This evidence is crucial for informing risk assessment, public health policy, and ultimately, protecting human health from environmental and occupational hazards.

Creating and Utilizing a Test-List of Exemplar Articles

Application Note: The Role of Test-Lists in Systematic Environmental Evidence Synthesis

In systematic evidence synthesis, a test-list of exemplar articles (also known as a "benchmark" or "golden" set) is a curated collection of known, relevant studies used to validate the performance of a search strategy. The primary purpose of this practice is to minimize bias and ensure the comprehensiveness of the literature search, a foundational step upon which the entire synthesis is built [2]. Failing to include relevant literature can lead to inaccurate or skewed conclusions, undermining the validity and reliability of the review's findings [2].

Within the broader thesis of systematic searching for environmental evidence, using a test-list provides a measurable and transparent method to confirm that the search strategy is fit-for-purpose and capable of retrieving a high proportion of the studies it should. This is a key procedure for enhancing methodological rigour and is aligned with the principles of reproducibility and transparency mandated by leading synthesis organizations like the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) [26] [2].

Quantitative Framework for Search Validation

The performance of a search strategy against a test-list can be evaluated using standard information retrieval metrics. These metrics provide a quantitative basis for refining and approving a search strategy before its full execution.

Table 1: Key Metrics for Evaluating Search Strategy Performance Using a Test-List

Metric	Calculation	Interpretation
Sensitivity (Recall)	(Number of test-list articles retrieved / Total number of articles in test-list) × 100	The percentage of known relevant articles the search successfully finds. A higher percentage indicates a more comprehensive, less biased search [2].
Specificity	(Number of irrelevant articles correctly excluded / Total number of irrelevant articles) × 100	The search's ability to exclude irrelevant material. Higher specificity increases search efficiency.
Precision	(Number of test-list articles retrieved / Total number of articles retrieved) × 100	The percentage of retrieved articles that are from the test-list. Higher precision reduces the screening burden.

Protocol for Developing and Applying a Test-List of Exemplar Articles

This protocol provides a step-by-step methodology for creating and utilizing a test-list, framed within the context of a systematic review or map in environmental management.

Phase 1: Planning and Scoping

• Step 1: Initial Scoping Search: Conduct a preliminary, broad search in one or two key bibliographic databases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science) to gauge the volume and nature of the literature [2]. This helps determine if the review question is feasible and informs the resources needed.
• Step 2: Identify Sources for Exemplar Articles: The test-list should be compiled from diverse sources to mitigate biases such as publication bias (the tendency to publish significant results) and language bias (the dominance of English-language literature) [2].
  • Key sources include:
    • Key organizational websites (e.g., IUCN, UNEP).
    • Existing systematic reviews on similar topics.
    • Grey literature databases and institutional repositories.
    • Citation chasing (snowballing) from key papers.
    • Consultation with subject experts to identify seminal or hard-to-find studies [2] [27].

Phase 2: Creating the Test-List

• Step 3: Define Inclusion Criteria for the Test-List: Articles should be selected for the test-list based on their direct relevance to the structured review question (e.g., formulated using PECO/PICO elements) [2]. The unit of analysis is the study, noting that one article may contain multiple studies or one study may be reported in multiple articles [2].
• Step 4: Assemble and Document the Test-List: Create a final, stable list of known relevant articles. The recommended size of a test-list can vary, but it should be a manageable yet representative sample. Document the full bibliographic details of each article and the source from which it was identified.

Table 2: Essential Components of a Test-List and Research Reagents

Component / Reagent	Function in the Protocol
Structured Review Question (PECO/PICO)	Serves as the framework against which the relevance of candidate articles for the test-list is judged [2].
Bibliographic Databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase)	Primary sources for the scoping search and for testing the performance of the search strategy [27] [28].
Reference Management Software (e.g., Covidence, Rayyan)	Platform for storing the test-list, de-duplicating records, and managing the screening process [28].
Information Specialist / Librarian	A key methodological partner in designing the comprehensive search strategy and often in identifying sources for the test-list [27].

Phase 3: Validating and Executing the Search Strategy

• Step 5: Test the Search Strategy: Run the draft search strategy in the primary databases and check the results against the test-list. Calculate the sensitivity (recall) [2].
• Step 6: Refine the Search Strategy: If the search fails to retrieve all articles in the test-list, analyze the missing articles to identify why they were not found. This may involve:
  • Adding missing synonyms, acronyms, or keyword variants.
  • Reviewing and adjusting the use of controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH, Emtree terms).
  • Modifying the Boolean operators or search string structure [2] [28].
• Step 7: Peer Review the Search Strategy: Have the final search strategy reviewed by an independent information specialist or a second researcher using a checklist like PRISMA-S or PRESS to identify potential errors or omissions [27].
• Step 8: Execute and Report the Final Search: Once the search strategy demonstrates high sensitivity against the test-list, conduct the full search across all planned sources. The final report must transparently document the use of the test-list, the performance achieved, and any limitations, as per PRISMA 2020 guidelines [27] [28] [29].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key stages of this protocol.

Workflow for Test-List Application

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines provide an evidence-based framework designed to improve the transparency and completeness of systematic review reporting [29]. The PRISMA 2020 statement serves as the current core guideline, encompassing 27 essential checklist items that guide authors in reporting why the review was done, what methods were used, and what results were found [30] [31]. Within this framework, the literature search constitutes a foundational component, as it establishes the underlying data available for analysis and significantly influences all subsequent review processes [32]. The value of any systematic review is contingent upon the trustworthiness and applicability of its findings, which themselves depend on readers being able to understand and verify the methods used to identify relevant evidence [33].

The PRISMA-S extension was developed specifically to address the critical need for comprehensive search reporting [34]. This 16-item checklist provides detailed guidance for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews, complementing the main PRISMA statement by ensuring each search component is documented completely enough to be reproducible [32]. In the context of environmental evidence synthesis, where research is often dispersed across interdisciplinary sources, rigorous search documentation becomes particularly vital for establishing the reliability of review conclusions that may inform policy and practice.

The PRISMA-S Framework for Search Documentation

Core Principles and Development

PRISMA-S emerged from recognized deficiencies in how literature searches were reported across systematic reviews, even among those claiming adherence to PRISMA guidelines [32]. The extension was developed through a rigorous methodological process including a 3-stage Delphi survey with international experts, a consensus conference, and a public review process, ensuring its applicability across disciplines and research domains [32]. The primary objective of PRISMA-S is to provide extensive, specific guidance on reporting the literature search components of a systematic review, creating a verifiable standard that authors, editors, and peer reviewers can use to ensure search reproducibility [32].

The guidance encompasses all method-driven literature searches for evidence synthesis, including not only systematic reviews but also scoping reviews, rapid reviews, realist reviews, and evidence maps [35] [32]. This broad applicability makes it particularly valuable for environmental evidence synthesis, where diverse review types are employed to address complex ecological questions and inform evidence-based environmental management decisions.

Essential Reporting Elements

The PRISMA-S checklist comprises 16 items that detail specific information to report about the search process. Key elements include:

• Database searching: Reporting full search strategies for all databases, including the name of the database, platform or provider, and date of search execution [32]
• Search techniques: Documenting the use of subject filters, limits, or study design filters that could affect search results
• Citation searching: Describing the use of reference lists, citation mining, or similar article features to identify additional records
• Contact with experts: Reporting when and how authors contacted researchers or organizations to identify additional studies
• Search peer review: Documenting whether the search strategy was peer-reviewed, using a standard checklist

The complete PRISMA-S checklist items are summarized in Table 1 below, which provides researchers with a structured framework for documenting their search methods.

Table 1: PRISMA-S Checklist for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

Item #	Item Description	Reporting Location	Critical Elements
1	Database name & provider	Methods	Platform/vendor, interface, specific settings
2	Multi-database searching	Methods	Strategies tailored to each database
3	Search strategy presentation	Supplementary	Full Boolean logic for all databases
4	Date limits & restrictions	Methods	Rationale for any date limits applied
5	Search filters & limits	Methods	Study design, language, other filters
6	Search date documentation	Methods	Exact date search was conducted
7	Citation searching approach	Methods	Reference lists, citation mining methods
8	Gray literature strategies	Methods	Sources, search methods, dates
9	Web search methods	Methods	Websites, search approaches, dates
10	Hand searching methods	Methods	Journals, conference proceedings covered
11	Contact with experts	Methods	Process for identifying and contacting experts
12	Search peer review	Methods	Use of standardized peer review checklists
13	Total records identified	Results	Flow diagram with PRISMA template
14	Deduplication process	Methods	Method, software used for deduplication
15	Search updates	Methods	Rationale, methods, dates for updated searches
16	Final search date	Methods	Date the final search was conducted for review

Current State of Search Reporting Transparency

Empirical Evidence of Reporting Gaps

Recent audits of systematic review reporting practices reveal significant gaps in search transparency across multiple scientific disciplines. A comprehensive examination of 100 forensic science systematic reviews published between 2018 and 2021 found that while 50% of reviews claimed to follow a reporting guideline, these statements were only modestly related to actual compliance with reporting standards [36]. Specific analysis of search reporting identified that only 82% reported all databases searched, a mere 22% reported the full Boolean search logic, and just 7% reported that the review was prospectively registered [36].

These transparency deficits substantially impact the reproducibility and reliability of systematic reviews, particularly in fields like environmental science where decisions may have significant policy and conservation implications. When search methods are incompletely reported, readers cannot assess potential biases in study identification or verify that the review comprehensively captured relevant evidence [36]. Furthermore, without complete search documentation, systematic reviews cannot be efficiently updated as new evidence emerges—a critical limitation for rapidly evolving environmental challenges such as climate change impacts or emerging contaminants.

Quantitative Assessment of Reporting Practices

Table 2: Compliance with Search Reporting Standards in a Sample of 100 Forensic Science Systematic Reviews (2018-2021)

Reporting Element	Compliance Rate	Impact on Reproducibility
Statement of reporting guideline use	50%	Moderate - claims not strongly linked to compliance
Reporting all databases searched	82%	High - affects ability to replicate search environment
Full Boolean search logic provided	22%	Critical - prevents exact search reproduction
Documented search date	89%	High - affects search currency assessment
Review protocol registration	7%	Critical - prevents assessment of selective reporting
Flow diagram presentation	68%	Moderate - affects tracking of study selection
Data availability statement	1%	Critical - prevents verification of synthesis
Analytic code availability	0%	Critical - prevents verification of meta-analysis

Experimental Protocol for Transparent Search Documentation

Preregistration and Protocol Development

Before initiating a systematic review, researchers should develop and register a detailed protocol that explicitly defines the search strategy. The PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) statement provides a 17-item checklist to facilitate the preparation of robust protocols [37] [35]. For environmental evidence syntheses, the protocol should specify:

• The research question framed using appropriate frameworks (PICO, PECO, etc.)
• Preliminary search strategy for at least one primary database
• All databases and gray literature sources to be searched
• Eligibility criteria for study inclusion/exclusion
• Planned methods for managing search results and data

Protocol registration should occur on publicly accessible platforms such as the Open Science Framework (OSF) or discipline-specific registries, with the timestamped registration cited in the final review [36]. This practice establishes an audit trail that protects against selective reporting bias and demonstrates methodological rigor.

Implementing the PRISMA-S Search Documentation Framework

The following workflow provides a detailed protocol for executing and documenting a reproducible literature search appropriate for environmental evidence syntheses:

Diagram 1: PRISMA-S compliant literature search workflow

Phase 1: Database and Source Selection (Items 1, 8, 9)

• Select at least three disciplinary and interdisciplinary databases relevant to environmental science (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science, GreenFILE, Environment Complete)
• Identify specialized gray literature sources including government reports, institutional repositories, and trial registries
• Document each source with platform/provider information and date coverage

Phase 2: Search Strategy Development (Items 3, 5)

• Develop conceptual search frameworks using natural language and controlled vocabulary
• Test and refine search strategies using iterative sensitivity and precision checks
• Incorporate methodological filters appropriate for environmental study designs
• Document all limits applied (e.g., date, language, publication status)

Phase 3: Search Peer Review (Item 12)

• Submit search strategies for formal peer review using the PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies) guideline
• Document review process and incorporate feedback into final search strategies
• Retain records of all search strategy versions for audit trail

Phase 4: Search Execution and Records Management (Items 6, 13, 14)

• Execute all searches within a defined 24-hour period to minimize database currency effects
• Export all records with complete bibliographic information
• Implement systematic deduplication process using established software tools
• Document exact numbers of records identified at each stage for PRISMA flow diagram

Phase 5: Comprehensive Documentation (Items 3, 16)

• Present full search strategies for all databases as supplementary materials
• Document final search date and any search updates conducted
• Complete PRISMA 2020 flow diagram with study identification and inclusion numbers

The Researcher's Toolkit for Search Documentation

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Transparent Search Documentation

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Resources	Function in Search Documentation
Reporting Guidelines	PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-S, PRISMA-P	Provide standardized checklists for complete reporting
Protocol Registries	Open Science Framework, PROSPERO	Establish timestamped protocol for audit trail
Reference Management	EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley	Manage search results, deduplication, and screening
Search Translation	Polyglot Search Translator, SR-Accelerator	Assist with translating searches across multiple databases
Deduplication Tools	Covidence, Rayyan, Systematic Review Desktop	Implement systematic identification of duplicate records
Flow Diagram Generators	PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram Generator	Create standardized study flow diagrams
Data Sharing Platforms	Figshare, Dryad, Institutional Repositories	Host supplementary search strategies and data
LY 227942-d5	LY 227942-d5, MF:C20H21NO5S, MW:392.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
D-(+)-Trehalose-d14	D-(+)-Trehalose-d14, MF:C12H22O11, MW:356.38 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Application to Environmental Evidence Synthesis

The PRISMA-S framework provides particular value for environmental evidence syntheses, where comprehensive search strategies must often span multiple disciplines and account for diverse study designs and publication venues. Environmental systematic reviews frequently encounter challenges with gray literature identification, non-English publications, and geographically dispersed research—all of which necessitate meticulous documentation to ensure representative evidence capture.

When applying PRISMA-S to environmental topics, researchers should pay special attention to documenting searches of government databases, institutional repositories, and regional databases that may contain relevant technical reports or local studies. The flexibility of the PRISMA-S framework accommodates these specialized sources while maintaining standardized reporting requirements that ensure transparency and reproducibility across the evidence synthesis ecosystem.

The following diagram illustrates the relationship between search documentation and evidence reliability in environmental systematic reviews:

Diagram 2: Relationship between search documentation and evidence reliability

Robust documentation of literature searches using the PRISMA-S framework represents a methodological imperative for ensuring transparency and reproducibility in systematic reviews. By implementing the detailed protocols outlined in this application note, researchers conducting environmental evidence syntheses can significantly enhance the reliability and utility of their review findings. The standardized reporting facilitated by PRISMA-S not only enables critical appraisal and replication but also contributes to a more cumulative and trustworthy evidence base for informing environmental policy and practice decisions. As the field of evidence synthesis continues to evolve with emerging methodologies such as living systematic reviews and machine-learning assisted screening, the fundamental principle of transparent search documentation remains essential for maintaining scientific integrity across all domains of research synthesis.

Overcoming Common Challenges and Enhancing Search Efficiency

Application Note: Understanding and Addressing Key Biases in Environmental Evidence Synthesis

Systematic evidence synthesis is a cornerstone of evidence-informed decision-making in environmental health science. However, the integrity of its conclusions is vulnerable to several systemic biases that can distort the evidence base. This application note details protocols for identifying and mitigating three major biases—publication, language, and temporal bias—within the context of systematic searching for environmental evidence methods research. These protocols support the creation of Systematic Evidence Maps (SEMs) and reviews, which are critical for navigating complex evidence landscapes and identifying research trends and gaps [22]. Left unaddressed, these biases can lead to flawed meta-analyses, misguided policy interventions, and wasted research resources [38] [39].

Publication Bias

Publication bias, also known as the "file drawer problem," occurs when the publication of research findings is influenced by their direction or statistical significance [38] [39]. In environmental evidence, this leads to an overrepresentation of studies showing positive or significant effects (e.g., a pollutant causing a significant health effect), while studies with null or negative results remain unpublished.

• Consequences: This bias distorts effect sizes in meta-analyses, risks the acceptance of false claims, and can lead to inaccurate policy recommendations [38]. For instance, a meta-analysis of published studies on a chemical's toxicity might overestimate its risk if studies finding no effect remain unpublished.
• Quantitative Evidence: Recent analyses reveal the depth of the problem. As shown in Table 1, a vast majority of journals do not explicitly welcome null findings, and such findings are severely underrepresented in the literature [38].

Table 1: Quantitative Evidence of Publication Bias

Field of Study	Metric	Finding	Source/Example
Prognostic Markers / Animal Stroke Models	Proportion of articles reporting null findings	< 2%	[38]
Neuroscience Journals	Journals not explicitly welcoming null studies	180 out of 215	NINDS Analysis [38]
Neuroscience Journals	Journals accepting null studies unconditionally	14 out of 215	NINDS Analysis [38]
Psychology	Proportion of null findings in Registered Reports	Substantially increased	[38]

Language Bias

Linguistic bias occurs when perceptions about a researcher's identity, informed by the language they use, influence how others judge their work's scientific quality [40]. With English as the dominant language of science, non-native speakers face significant barriers, and research published in languages other than English is often overlooked in systematic reviews.

• Consequences: This bias preferentially amplifies native English voices, sidelines multilingual talent, and creates an incomplete evidence base for synthesis [40]. It can manifest in peer review through more favorable evaluations for writing perceived as "native," creating an unfair barrier to publication.
• Impact on AI: The issue is exacerbated by multilingual AI systems, which often privilege dominant languages like English. A study on Large Language Models (LLMs) found that they create "information cocoons," providing different answers to the same query based on the language used and defaulting to an English-centric perspective for low-resource languages [41]. This can skew the information available to researchers and policymakers.

Temporal Bias

Temporal bias refers to systematic changes in data, methods, or contextual understanding over time that can influence research findings and their interpretation. In environmental contexts, this can arise from changes in monitoring technology, environmental conditions, or analytical techniques.

• In Industrial Image Data: While first identified in computer science, this concept is highly relevant to environmental science. A study on industrial image datasets demonstrated that models trained on initial data (I0) experienced significant performance degradation as input images changed over time (I1...It) due to factors like lighting changes or sensor aging [42]. This demonstrates that data distributions are not static.
• Relevance to Environmental Evidence: Temporal bias can affect environmental evidence in several ways, such as using outdated analytical methods that are less sensitive, or a shift in baseline environmental conditions (e.g., climate change) that alters the context and applicability of historical studies. Failure to account for this can lead to models and policies that are not reflective of current realities.

Protocols for Bias Identification and Mitigation

Comprehensive Protocol for Mitigating Publication Bias

This protocol provides a structured approach to minimize publication bias in evidence synthesis, from study conception to dissemination.

Experimental Workflow for Mitigating Publication Bias:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Study Pre-registration: Before data collection, publicly register the study's hypotheses, methods, and analysis plan on a platform like ClinicalTrials.gov, the Open Science Framework (OSF), or an environment-specific registry. This commits to reporting all analyses, reducing cherry-picking of results [38].
• Registered Reports Format: Submit the introduction and methods of your study for peer review before results are known (Peer Review (Stage 1)). Journals providing In-Principle Acceptance agree to publish the work based on methodological rigor, regardless of the eventual outcome [38]. This is a powerful tool for neutralizing publication bias.
• Systematic Searching for Unpublished Data: As part of an evidence synthesis:
  • Search preprint servers (e.g., arXiv, bioRxiv, OSF Preprints).
  • Search clinical trial registries for summary results.
  • Search specialized grey literature databases (e.g., OpenGrey) and institutional repositories.
  • Contact experts in the field to inquire about ongoing or unpublished studies [38] [39].
• Statistical and Graphical Tests: In meta-analyses, use statistical tests (e.g., Egger's regression test) and create funnel plots to visually assess and test for asymmetry that may indicate publication bias [39].
• Institutional Policy Reform: Research institutions should reform promotion and tenure policies to value the dissemination of all high-quality research, including null results, and the use of innovative publication formats (e.g., micropublications, modular publications) [38].

Protocol for Identifying and Mitigating Language Bias

This protocol ensures a more inclusive and linguistically equitable search and appraisal process in evidence synthesis.

Workflow for Mitigating Language Bias in Systematic Reviews:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Inclusive Search Strategy: Do not restrict database searches by language. Actively search literature databases in non-English languages relevant to the research topic (e.g., Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese for environmental studies in relevant regions).
• Translation of Key Study Elements: For studies that pass initial screening, translate the title, abstract, and methods sections to assess eligibility and risk of bias. Utilize professional translation services, collaborative networks, or AI tools with caution and human verification [40].
• Double-Blind Peer Review: Advocate for and participate in double-blind peer review processes as an author, reviewer, and editor. Hiding author identities has been shown to equalize peer ratings and reduce linguistic bias [40].
• Structured, Rubric-Based Appraisal: As a reviewer, use pre-established criteria and rubrics focused on technical merit, scientific rigor, and novelty. Do not change these criteria mid-assessment. Consciously separate evaluation of science from evaluation of language proficiency [40].
• Reviewer Self-Awareness and Training: Reviewers and editors should engage in training to recognize unconscious linguistic biases. A key question to ask is: "Do language deficiencies prevent an objective evaluation of the science?" If the answer is "no," the review should focus on clarity and scientific content. If "yes," the reviewer should recuse themselves and inform the editor [40].

Protocol for Identifying and Mitigating Temporal Bias

This protocol, adapted from computer vision and industrial monitoring, helps detect and correct for temporal shifts in environmental data.

Experimental Workflow for Temporal Bias Analysis:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Temporal Partitioning of Data: When building a dataset for analysis or model training, partition the data into subsets based on the time period of collection (e.g., H1, H2, H3 for a high-reflectivity parts dataset) [42].
• "Name That Dataset" Experiment: Train a classification model (e.g., a Convolutional Neural Network like ResNet50 for image data) to identify which time period a data sample comes from. Prediction accuracy significantly above random chance (e.g., ~90% vs. ~33% for three periods) demonstrates the model can detect systematic temporal bias in the data [42].
• Cross-Dataset Generalization Test: Train a model on the earliest data partition (e.g., T1/H1) and test its performance on subsequent partitions (T2, T3). A significant drop in performance over time indicates that temporal bias harms model inference and real-world applicability [42].
• Visualization of Temporal Drift: Use dimensionality reduction techniques (e.g., PCA, t-SNE) to visualize the high-dimensional features of the data. Plotting data from different time periods will often show clusters or shifts, making the temporal bias visually apparent. Studies show that bias in "defect" images is often more pronounced than in "normal" images [42].
• Model Retraining and Mitigation: Compare different strategies to update the model, as their effectiveness depends on factors like new dataset size [42].
  • M1: Fine-tuning: Update the original model by training it further on the new, recent data.
  • M2: Cross-Dataset Learning: Retrain a new model from scratch using all accumulated data (old and new).
  • M3: New Dataset Learning: Train a new model using only the most recent data. For smaller new datasets, M2 (using all data) often performs best, while for larger new datasets, M3 can be more effective [42].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Tools and Platforms for Bias Mitigation in Evidence Synthesis

Tool/Platform Name	Type	Primary Function in Bias Mitigation	Relevant Bias
Open Science Framework (OSF)	Registry/Repository	Facilitates study pre-registration and sharing of all research outputs (including null data).	Publication
Registered Reports	Journal Format	Peer review prior to results; ensures publication based on methodological rigor, not outcome.	Publication
bioRxiv / arXiv	Preprint Server	Enables rapid dissemination of findings before formal peer review, circumventing publication bias.	Publication
Figshare / Zenodo	Data Repository	Provides a platform to share null results, full datasets, and supplementary findings.	Publication
Double-Blind Peer Review	Editorial Policy	Anonymizes authors and reviewers to reduce judgement based on identity or language.	Language
PROSPERO	Registry	International database for pre-registering systematic reviews, reducing duplication and outcome reporting bias.	Publication
Google Translate API	Translation Tool	Aids in initial screening of non-English literature for systematic reviews (requires verification).	Language
ResNet50	Neural Network	A standard CNN architecture used in "Name That Dataset" experiments to detect temporal bias.	Temporal
PCA/t-SNE	Algorithm	Dimensionality reduction techniques for visualizing data drift and temporal bias.	Temporal
UNC10201652	UNC10201652, MF:C20H25N7OS, MW:411.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Application Notes: Core Principles for Error-Free Searching

In the context of systematic searching for environmental evidence, technical errors in search construction can introduce bias, lead to the omission of critical evidence, and compromise the validity of a review's conclusions. Syntax mistakes and misspelled search terms represent a significant source of potential error, directly impacting the reproducibility and comprehensiveness of the search methodology, which is a foundational element of rigorous systematic reviews, systematic evidence maps, and related manuscript types [1] [43].

The primary objectives of these application notes are to:

• Minimize Bias: Ensure the search strategy captures a representative and unbiased sample of the available literature.
• Maximize Reproducibility: Enable other researchers to exactly replicate the search strategy and obtain identical results.
• Ensure Comprehensiveness: Reduce the risk of missing relevant studies due to trivial technical oversights.

Table 1: Quantitative Impact of Common Search Errors

Search Error Category	Common Example	Potential Impact on Search Results	Estimated Performance Drop
Boolean Logic Error	Using AND instead of OR between synonyms	Drastically reduces result set, excludes key studies	Can exclude >50% of relevant results [44]
Misspelled Search Term	environmental instead of environmental	Fails to retrieve studies using the correct spelling	Can exclude 100% of results for that term
Incorrect Field Code	Failing to search in [Title/Abstract]	Returns irrelevant results from full text, increasing screening burden	Can reduce precision by over 30%
Unbalanced Parentheses	(term1 AND term2 OR term3)	Causes unpredictable parsing, yielding illogical results	Unpredictable, often renders search invalid
Truncation Error	Using pollut* without considering unwanted terms (e.g., "pollutant", "pollute", "pollution")	Introduces noise from irrelevant word forms	Can increase irrelevant results by 15-25%

Experimental Protocols for Search Strategy Validation

Protocol for Peer Review of Search Syntax (PRISSS)

This protocol provides a detailed methodology for validating search syntax before execution, as required by high-standard systematic reviews [43].

2.1.1. Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function in Protocol
Search Strategy Template	A standardized document for recording each search line, Boolean operators, and field codes to ensure consistency.
Search Syntax Validator Tool	Software or online tools (e.g., those provided by major databases) that check for balanced parentheses and valid field codes.
Pre-defined Terminologies	Lists of controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH, Emtree) and pre-identified key synonyms to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Peer Review Checklist	A structured list of items for a second researcher to verify, covering logic, spelling, and syntax.

2.1.2. Methodology

• Initial Strategy Formulation: The lead researcher drafts the complete search strategy using the Search Strategy Template.
• Syntax Validation Run: The draft strategy is processed by a Search Syntax Validator Tool to identify and correct fundamental structural errors.
• Independent Peer Review: A second researcher uses the Peer Review Checklist to independently verify:
  • Correct use of Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT).
  • Accurate spelling of all search terms.
  • Appropriate application of truncation and wildcards.
  • Proper nesting of concepts using parentheses.
  • Correct use of field codes for the target database.
• Iterative Refinement: Discrepancies identified during peer review are discussed and resolved, with the search strategy updated accordingly.
• Final Sign-off: The validated search strategy is documented and signed off by both researchers before live execution.

Diagram 1: Search syntax peer review workflow.

Protocol for Query Testing and Calibration (QTC)

This protocol outlines a method for testing and refining a search strategy using a known set of benchmark articles to calibrate its performance [43].

2.2.1. Methodology

• Benchmark Assembly: Compile a "gold standard" set of 10-20 key publications known to be relevant to the research question through preliminary scoping.
• Initial Query Execution: Run the draft search strategy against a primary database (e.g., PubMed, Scopus).
• Recall Assessment: Check if the search results from Step 2 retrieve all articles in the benchmark set.
• Gap Analysis: For any benchmark articles not retrieved, analyze the reason for failure (e.g., missing synonym, incorrect syntax, spelling error).
• Strategy Iteration: Modify the search strategy to incorporate the findings from the gap analysis.
• Precision Check: Manually review a sample of the first 50 results to assess precision and identify sources of noise for further refinement.
• Final Calibration: Repeat steps 3-6 until the search retrieves all benchmark articles (or a satisfactorily high proportion) without excessive irrelevant results.

Diagram 2: Query testing and calibration process.

Data Presentation: Error Frequency and Mitigation

Table 2: Systematic Search Error Taxonomy and Mitigation Strategies

Error Type	Sub-Type	Root Cause	Recommended Mitigation Protocol	Validation Technique
Syntax Mistakes	Unbalanced Parentheses	Human error during complex query building	PRISSS (Protocol 2.1)	Syntax Validator Tool
	Incorrect Boolean Operator Precedence	Misunderstanding of logical processing order	PRISSS (Protocol 2.1)	Peer Review Checklist
	Invalid Field Code	Database-specific knowledge gap	Maintain a database-specific code cheatsheet	Test query on a single known record
Terminology Errors	Misspelled Search Term	Lack of automated spell-check in interfaces	PRISSS (Protocol 2.1), specifically peer review for spelling	QTC (Protocol 2.2) - Benchmark failure reveals typos
	Inconsistent Truncation	Over- or under-extension of word stems	Test truncation in database thesaurus; review results sample	Manually review a sample of truncated term results
	Missing Synonym	Inadequate scoping or vocabulary development	Use of pre-defined terminologies and thesauri	QTC (Protocol 2.2) - Benchmark failure reveals gaps

Diagram 3: Taxonomy of common technical search errors.

Strategies for Managing Multilingual Literature and Translation

Within environmental evidence methods research, the capacity to systematically identify, translate, and synthesize global literature is paramount for robust evidence synthesis. The increasing volume of non-English scientific publications presents a significant challenge, as overlooking them can introduce substantial bias and gaps in systematic reviews and maps [45]. Effective multilingual literature management is no longer ancillary but central to producing truly comprehensive and unbiased syntheses of environmental evidence. This document outlines practical strategies and protocols for integrating rigorous translation workflows into environmental evidence methodologies, ensuring that language barriers do not compromise the integrity of scientific findings.

Defining Translation Needs and Strategies

A successful multilingual strategy begins with a clear assessment of the project's requirements, balancing the need for accuracy with available resources such as time and budget. A one-size-fits-all approach is inefficient; a content-tiering strategy is recommended to align translation methods with the criticality of the document content [46].

Table 1: Content-Tiering Strategy for Translation in Evidence Synthesis

Content Tier	Description & Examples	Recommended Translation Method	Rationale
High-Stakes	Key studies central to the review question; studies with critical data for meta-analysis; documents for policy-influencing conclusions.	Human Translation + Peer Review	Ensures maximum accuracy (95-100%) and nuanced understanding for foundational evidence [46].
Medium-Stakes	Studies providing contextual information; background literature; methodological descriptions.	AI Translation + Light Human Post-Editing	Balances good accuracy with efficiency, suitable for content where perfect nuance is less critical [46].
Low-Stakes	Administrative documents; broad literature for initial scanning; user-generated content in grey literature.	Raw AI Translation	Provides rapid, cost-effective understanding of general content meaning for initial screening [46].

The choice between machine and human translation hinges on this tiered approach. AI-powered machine translation (MT) tools (e.g., Google Translate, DeepL) offer remarkable speed and cost-effectiveness for processing large volumes of text, with accuracy rates ranging from 70% to 85% for straightforward content [47] [46]. However, they struggle with complex sentence structures, technical jargon, cultural nuances, and intentional ambiguities common in scientific writing [46]. In contrast, professional human translators achieve 95-100% accuracy and are indispensable for high-stakes content, bringing essential cultural awareness and contextual understanding that AI currently cannot replicate [48] [46]. For evidence synthesis, a hybrid model that leverages AI for initial drafting and human expertise for review and refinement of critical texts often delivers the optimal balance of efficiency and reliability [47] [46].

Essential Toolkit for Researchers

Equipping researchers with the right combination of technologies and human resources is critical for implementing an effective multilingual workflow.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Multilingual Management

Tool Category	Example Tools/Platforms	Primary Function in Research	Key Considerations
AI Translation Engines	Google Translate, DeepL, Microsoft Translator	Rapid, initial translation of large text volumes; support for over 100 languages [47].	Accuracy varies by language pair; requires post-editing for complex/technical text; data privacy risks with cloud-based tools [47] [46].
Translation Management Systems (TMS)	Smartling, Memsource	Streamline workflow for teams; centralized project tracking; glossary/terminology management for consistency [47].	Higher initial setup cost; essential for large-scale, collaborative systematic reviews.
Specialized Translation Services	LanguageLine Solutions	Provide on-demand, professional human translators for specific sectors (e.g., healthcare, legal) [47].	Crucial for certified translations or highly specialized domain expertise; higher cost.
Multilingual SEO & Search Tools	Regional keyword planners, AI-optimized search tools	Aid in discovering non-English grey literature and locally published studies [49].	Requires understanding of regional search habits and language-specific keywords.
Collaboration Platforms with AI	Microsoft Teams (with real-time translation features)	Facilitate communication among international research team members and stakeholders [48].	Enhances teamwork but should not replace formal translation for documented evidence.

Experimental Protocol for Integrating Translation into Systematic Workflows

Integrating translation seamlessly into the standard systematic review process is key to its success. The following protocol, visualized in the workflow below, provides a detailed methodology.

Protocol Title:Integrated Translation Workflow for Environmental Evidence Synthesis

Objective: To systematically identify, translate, and incorporate non-English literature into a systematic review or map, minimizing language bias and maximizing evidence reliability.

Materials:

• Source literature in multiple languages.
• Access to AI translation tools (see Table 2).
• Budget for professional translation services or post-editing.
• Translation management system or spreadsheet for tracking.
• Multilingual glossary of key technical terms.

Methodology:

• Protocol Development & Strategic Planning:

  • Identify Target Languages: Based on the research topic, determine which non-English languages are likely to yield significant relevant literature (e.g., Mandarin, Spanish, Portuguese, French for many environmental topics) [45].
  • Pre-define Translation Strategy: Document in the review protocol how different types of documents will be handled (refer to Table 1). Create a budget for professional translation services.
  • Develop a Multilingual Glossary: Define key search terms and technical jargon in all target languages. This ensures consistency in both searching and subsequent translation.

• Search, Screening, and Triage:

  • Execute systematic searches in bibliographic databases using the pre-defined multilingual terms.
  • Apply standard inclusion/exclusion criteria first to titles and abstracts. Machine translation can be used at this stage for rapid screening.
  • For studies passing the initial screen, obtain full-text documents.

• Tiered Translation and Full-Text Assessment:

  • Classify each non-English full-text document into a tier (High, Medium, Low) as per Table 1.
  • High-Stakes Documents: Send for professional human translation. The output should be a fluent, accurate document ready for data extraction.
  • Medium-Stakes Documents: Process through a high-quality AI engine (e.g., DeepL). A linguist or domain expert then performs Machine Translation Post-Editing (MTPE), correcting errors and improving fluency [50].
  • Low-Stakes Documents: Use raw AI translation to gauge relevance and general content. This may be sufficient for descriptive mapping or can be flagged for upgrade if potentially important.

• Data Extraction and Synthesis:

  • Perform data extraction from the finalized translated documents (High and Medium tiers) using standard data extraction forms.
  • Clearly document the original language of each study and the translation method used in the extraction sheet. This is crucial for transparency and assessing potential for translation-induced bias.

• Quality Assurance and Transparency:

  • Back-Translation Spot-Check: Select a random sample of translated texts. Have a different translator, blinded to the original, translate them back into English. Compare the back-translated version with the original to identify significant conceptual discrepancies [46].
  • Peer Review: Involve native speakers or domain experts to review a sample of translations for accuracy and contextual appropriateness.
  • Reporting: In the final systematic review report, explicitly state the languages covered, the translation methods employed for different document types, and any limitations related to language bias.

Application in Environmental Evidence Synthesis

The imperative for these strategies is powerfully demonstrated in environmental evidence. A survey of authors of environmental systematic reviews found that challenges in communication and engagement were common barriers to impact, underscoring the need for clear, accurate communication from the outset, including from non-English sources [51]. Furthermore, the environmental sector is increasingly recognizing the value of diverse evidence forms, including local and Indigenous knowledge, which are often documented in languages other than English [45]. Robust translation protocols are therefore essential to ethically and effectively incorporate this knowledge into evidence syntheses, ensuring decisions are informed by a truly global and inclusive evidence base [45] [51]. By systematically managing multilingual literature, researchers can enhance the credibility, legitimacy, and reliability of their syntheses, directly addressing the "unprecedented threats to the natural world" with the best available evidence, regardless of its language of publication [12].

Addressing Exposure Assessment Complexities in Environmental Studies

Exposure assessment is a fundamental component of environmental health research and risk assessment, defined as "the process of estimating or measuring the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposure to an agent, along with the number and characteristics of the population exposed" [52]. In the context of systematic searching for environmental evidence methods, it ideally describes the sources, routes, pathways, and uncertainties in the assessment [52]. This process represents one of the four major steps in the risk assessment framework, alongside hazard identification, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization [52].

The central role of exposure assessment in environmental epidemiology involves clarifying the relation between health and physical, biologic, and chemical factors through hypothesis-based research [53]. Effective application of exposure assessment methods can significantly improve epidemiologic investigations by reducing bias and enhancing statistical power to detect adverse effects associated with environmental contaminants [53]. The development of systematic approaches to exposure assessment has been recognized as crucial, with initiatives like the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) representing comprehensive efforts to understand and track total individual exposures on a national scale [53].

Foundational Concepts and Definitions

Key Terminology in Exposure Science

Exposure: An event that occurs when there is contact at a boundary between a human being and the environment with a contaminant of a specific concentration for an interval of time; the units of exposure are concentration multiplied by time [53].

Potential Dose: The amount of the chemical ingested, inhaled, or in material applied to the skin [53].

Applied Dose: The amount of a chemical that is absorbed or deposited in the body of an exposed organism [53].

Internal Dose: The amount of a chemical that is absorbed into the body and available for interaction with biologically significant molecular targets [53].

Biologically Effective Dose: The amount of a chemical that has interacted with a target site over a given period so as to alter a physiologic function [53].

Approaches to Exposure Assessment

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies three primary approaches for estimating exposure [52]:

• Direct Measurement Approaches: Involving personal monitoring, biological monitoring, and biomarker analysis
• Indirect Estimation Approaches: Utilizing microenvironmental monitoring coupled with exposure models, mathematical modeling, questionnaires/diaries, or spatial factors
• Exposure Reconstruction Approaches: Methods that reconstruct historical or current exposures through various analytical techniques

The concept of total exposure assessment has received considerable attention in recent years, consisting of estimating possible exposure from all media (soil, water, air, and food) and all routes of entry (inhalation, ingestion, and dermal absorption) [53]. This framework accounts for all exposures to a specific agent or group of agents that an individual may have had, regardless of the environmental medium, facilitating identification of the principal medium or microenvironment of concern [53].

Methodological Framework

Systematic Assessment Protocol

A robust protocol is essential for conducting systematic exposure assessments that minimize bias and ensure reproducibility. The following workflow outlines the key stages in exposure assessment methodology:

Figure 1: Systematic workflow for exposure assessment evidence synthesis

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Framework

Establishing clear boundaries for the review through inclusion and exclusion criteria is determined after establishing the research question and should be defined in advance of comprehensive literature searching [16]. Common variables used as inclusion and exclusion criteria include [16]:

• Date or date range of publication
• Exposure of interest (required experience or condition of participant or subject)
• Geographic location of the study
• Language of the publication
• Participant demographics
• Peer review status (which may determine inclusion of gray literature)
• Reported outcomes relevant to the research question
• Research setting (specific location of research participants)
• Study design characteristics
• Type of publication (original research or other publication types)

Experimental Approaches and Measurement Techniques

Direct Measurement Methodologies

Personal Monitoring Protocols

Purpose: To directly measure an individual's contact with environmental contaminants across multiple microenvironments [53].

Materials and Equipment:

• Calibrated portable air sampling pumps with appropriate collection media
• Dermal exposure sampling kits (including patches, wipes, or gloves)
• Global Positioning System (GPS) loggers for activity tracking
• Time-activity diaries for manual logging

Procedure:

• Select and recruit study participants using predetermined sampling criteria
• Calibrate all monitoring equipment according to manufacturer specifications
• Train participants in proper use of monitoring equipment and diary completion
• Deploy sampling equipment for predetermined monitoring period (typically 24-48 hours)
• Collect samples at regular intervals and document chain of custody
• Analyze samples using appropriate analytical methods (e.g., GC-MS, HPLC, ICP-MS)
• Process and quality control the resulting exposure data

Data Analysis: Calculate time-weighted average exposures incorporating all microenvironments; integrate with time-activity data to identify exposure hotspots.

Biomonitoring Protocols

Purpose: To measure chemicals, their metabolites, or reaction products in biological specimens, providing an integrated measure of exposure from all routes [53].

Materials and Equipment:

• Biological sample collection kits (appropriate for blood, urine, saliva, or other matrices)
• Sample preservation materials (coolers, cold packs, preservatives)
• Analytical instrumentation (e.g., LC-MS/MS, GC×GC-TOFMS)
• Certified reference materials and quality control samples

Procedure:

• Obtain institutional review board approval and informed consent from participants
• Collect biological samples following standardized protocols to prevent contamination
• Process and preserve samples according to analyte stability requirements
• Ship samples to analytical laboratory under appropriate conditions
• Perform chemical analysis using validated methods with quality control measures
• Adjust for variables such as creatinine (urine) or lipid content (blood) when necessary

Data Interpretation: Compare results with existing biomonitoring reference values; consider pharmacokinetics in temporal interpretation of spot samples.

Novel Exposure Assessment Technologies

Wearable Exposomic Monitors

Purpose: To facilitate longitudinal exposure assessment through passive sampling of personal environmental exposures [54].

Materials and Equipment:

• Silicone wristband or other polymer-based passive samplers
• Chemical analysis instrumentation (typically GC-MS or LC-MS)
• Calibration standards for target analytes
• Data processing software for exposomic analysis

Procedure:

• Pre-clean wearable samplers using appropriate solvents
• Deploy samplers to study participants with wearing instructions
• Collect samplers after wearing period (typically 1-7 days) and store appropriately
• Extract chemicals from samplers using validated extraction protocols
• Analyze extracts using high-resolution mass spectrometry techniques
• Process untargeted data to identify chemical features and annotate compounds

Applications: Particularly valuable for vulnerable populations (pregnant women, children) and for assessing complex mixture exposures [54].

Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics

Purpose: To conduct systems-level analysis of all low molecular weight chemical entities in a biological sample, enabling simultaneous monitoring of multiple environmental chemical exposures and their biological effects [54].

Materials and Equipment:

• High-resolution mass spectrometer (LC-MS or GC-MS)
• Chromatography system with appropriate columns
• Sample preparation equipment (centrifuges, solid-phase extraction)
• Metabolomics data processing software

Procedure:

• Collect biological samples (blood, urine, sweat) using standardized protocols
• Prepare samples using protein precipitation or other appropriate methods
• Analyze samples using untargeted or targeted metabolomics approaches
• Quality control including pooled quality control samples and blanks
• Process raw data to extract and align metabolic features
• Statistically analyze data to identify exposure-related metabolic perturbations

Data Interpretation: Integrate with pathway analysis to link exposures to biological impact; useful for investigating sex-specific differences in metabolic response [54].

Computational and Modeling Approaches

Exposure Modeling Framework

Computational models play a crucial role in exposure science by extrapolating, estimating, generalizing, complementing, and sometimes replacing measurements [55]. The selection of appropriate models depends on the exposure route, chemical classes, and available input parameters. The following workflow illustrates the computational exposure assessment process:

Figure 2: Computational exposure modeling workflow

Analysis of Frequently Utilized Exposure Models

Recent systematic scoping reviews have identified 63 mathematical models and toolboxes developed in Europe, North America, and globally for exposure assessment [55]. The table below summarizes the key computational approaches and their applications:

Table 1: Computational Approaches for Exposure Assessment

Model Category	Common Applications	Key Input Parameters	Strengths	Limitations
Probabilistic Models	Population-level exposure variability; risk assessment	Exposure factor distributions; chemical concentrations; time-activity patterns	Accounts for population variability; quantifies uncertainty	Requires substantial input data; computationally intensive
Deterministic Models	Screening-level assessment; regulatory applications	Point estimates for exposure factors; maximum concentration scenarios	Simple implementation; transparent calculations	Does not characterize variability or uncertainty
Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Models	Interspecies extrapolation; internal dose estimation	Physiological parameters; chemical-specific partitioning; metabolic rates	Predicts target tissue doses; supports route-to-route extrapolation	Requires extensive compound-specific data
Multimedia Fate and Transport Models	Environmental contaminant dispersion; indirect exposure	Chemical properties; emission rates; environmental compartment parameters	Estimates environmental concentrations; identifies dominant exposure pathways	Complex parameterization; uncertain environmental processes

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in Exposure Science

New Approach Methodologies are being developed to assess exposure through computational efforts to tackle biological and behavioral interindividual variability [55]. These include:

• Machine learning applications to draw inferences from existing data
• Computer-enhanced screening analyses to generate new data
• Mathematical models describing chemical exposure processes
• Read-across approaches for predicting exposure for data-poor chemicals

These methodologies are becoming increasingly popular due to their accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency compared to comprehensive measurement approaches [55].

Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis Protocols

Protocol Development Framework

Developing a detailed protocol is essential for conducting rigorous systematic reviews of exposure assessment methods [16]. A protocol establishes a plan of action that the research team will follow, minimizing the risk of introducing subjectivity and inconsistency into the review process [16]. Protocol development should describe:

• Scope and rationale of the review
• Search execution and documentation methods for identifying relevant research
• Inclusion/exclusion criteria for screening and selecting studies
• Data collection and analysis strategies for data coding and extraction

Systematic review protocols should be registered and published in a registry as a best practice to reduce duplication of effort and allow for peer-review of methodology [16]. Environment International journal requires that systematic review submissions have a registered protocol before considering manuscripts for publication [43].

Standards for Evidence Synthesis

Environment International accepts several types of evidence synthesis manuscripts, each with specific methodological requirements [43]:

Table 2: Evidence Synthesis Types and Characteristics

Synthesis Type	Primary Purpose	Key Methodological Requirements	Reporting Guidelines
Systematic Review	Answer tightly defined research questions with minimal bias	Comprehensive search; pre-specified eligibility criteria; critical appraisal; appropriate synthesis methods	PRISMA 2020 or ROSES
Scoping Review	Explore broader topics and identify key concepts, tools, and gaps	Systematic search; charting and categorization of evidence; identification of research gaps	PRISMA-ScR
Systematic Evidence Map	Catalogue and characterize available evidence without synthesis	Comprehensive search; systematic coding; database development; visualization of evidence landscape	Modified PRISMA or ROSES
Review of Reviews	Synthesize and compare results of existing systematic reviews	Assessment of overlap; critical appraisal of included reviews; interpretation of discordant results	PRIOR

Data Standards and Quality Assurance

Environmental Data Standards Framework

Environmental Data Standards represent structured agreements on how environmental information is collected, formatted, and shared, functioning as common languages for environmental data [56]. These standards encompass multiple dimensions:

• Data Content Standards: Specify the actual information to be collected and reported (e.g., parameters to measure, units of measurement)
• Data Format Standards: Dictate how data is structured and encoded (e.g., CSV, XML, GeoJSON)
• Data Transfer Standards: Define protocols for exchanging data between systems (e.g., APIs, web services)
• Metadata Standards: Specify documentation requirements for data interpretation (e.g., provenance, quality indicators, spatial and temporal context)
• Data Quality Standards: Provide guidelines for assessing and ensuring data quality (e.g., validation procedures, uncertainty estimation) [56]

The ISO 14033:2019 standard provides guidelines for the systematic and methodical acquisition and review of quantitative environmental information and data about systems, supporting the application of standards and reports on environmental management [57].

Quality Assurance Protocols

Data Quality Objectives Process:

• Define the specific problem and assessment goals
• Identify the required decisions and appropriate data types
• Define the boundaries of the assessment and required confidence levels
• Develop the approach for data collection and analysis
• Specify acceptable measurement quality levels
• Develop the overall implementation plan

Quality Control Measures:

• Field blanks and duplicates to assess contamination and precision
• Laboratory quality control samples (method blanks, matrix spikes, duplicates)
• Standard reference materials to assess accuracy
• Instrument calibration and maintenance logs
• Chain-of-custody documentation for sample integrity

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials and Reagents

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Exposure Assessment

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples	Key Considerations
Passive Sampling Media	Concentrates environmental contaminants for subsequent analysis	Silicone wristbands for personal monitoring; polymer sheets for water monitoring	Polymer selection affects uptake kinetics; requires calibration for quantitative analysis
Solid Phase Extraction Cartridges	Pre-concentrates analytes from liquid samples; removes matrix interferences	Extraction of pesticides from water; cleanup of biological samples	Selectivity depends on sorbent chemistry; requires optimization of elution solvents
Derivatization Reagents	Enhances detection of low-response analytes through chemical modification	GC analysis of polar compounds; improving MS sensitivity	Reaction conditions critical for completeness; may introduce artifacts
Stable Isotope-Labeled Standards	Corrects for analyte losses during sample preparation; quantifies recovery	Internal standards in mass spectrometry-based methods	Should be added early in sample preparation; should mimic native analyte behavior
Certified Reference Materials	Validates analytical method accuracy and precision	Quality assurance in chemical analysis; method development	Should match sample matrix when possible; provides traceability to reference methods
Preservation Reagents	Maintains analyte stability during sample storage and transport	Acidification of water metals samples; enzyme inhibition in biological samples	May interfere with analysis; optimal preservation method is analyte-dependent
Mobile Phase Additives	Modifies chromatographic separation; enhances ionization efficiency	LC-MS analysis; ion-pair chromatography	Must be MS-compatible for LC-MS applications; can affect column lifetime

Exposure assessment continues to evolve with advancements in measurement technologies, computational approaches, and systematic review methodologies. The field is moving toward more comprehensive approaches that address multiple exposures and routes, with increasing use of probabilistic analysis and computational methods to calculate human exposure [55]. Future directions include greater integration of novel approach methodologies (NAMs), enhanced data standardization through initiatives like the European Exposure Science Strategy 2020-2030, and improved harmonization of exposure models and tools to facilitate comparison between studies and consistency in regulatory processes [55].

Systematic approaches to exposure assessment, including rigorous protocol development, comprehensive evidence synthesis, and application of environmental data standards, provide the foundation for robust environmental health research and evidence-based decision-making. As the field advances, continued attention to methodological rigor, transparency in reporting, and integration of diverse evidence streams will be essential for addressing the complexities of exposure assessment in environmental studies.

Evaluating Search Performance and the Rise of Innovative Tools

Systematic searching forms the cornerstone of reliable evidence synthesis, a critical process in environmental health and drug development research. The performance of a search strategy directly impacts the validity and comprehensiveness of any subsequent review or map, as it determines which studies are included for analysis. For researchers and scientists, understanding and applying the core metrics of sensitivity, specificity, and precision is essential for developing search strategies that are both rigorous and efficient. This protocol provides detailed methodologies for assessing these metrics, ensuring that search strategies for evidence synthesis—such as Systematic Evidence Maps (SEMs) used in environmental science—are empirically validated and fit for purpose [11] [22].

Core Quantitative Metrics for Search Performance

The performance of a bibliographic search strategy is quantitatively assessed using specific metrics derived from the number of relevant and non-relevant records it retrieves versus misses. These metrics are calculated against a "gold standard," typically established via a thorough hand search of the literature [58] [59].

Table 1: Key Performance Metrics for Search Strategies

Metric	Definition	Interpretation & Research Context	Formula
Sensitivity (Recall)	The proportion of all relevant articles in the database that are successfully retrieved by the search [58].	A high-sensitivity strategy minimizes the chance of missing relevant studies. Crucial for systematic reviews where completeness is paramount.	Sensitivity = (A / (A + C)) * 100%
Specificity	The proportion of all non-relevant articles that are correctly not retrieved by the search [58].	A high-specificity strategy efficiently excludes irrelevant records, reducing the screening burden. Important for rapid reviews or broad topics.	Specificity = (D / (B + D)) * 100%
Precision	The proportion of retrieved articles that are relevant [58].	Measures efficiency; high precision means a lower number of records needed to screen per relevant hit ("number needed to read") [58].	Precision = (A / (A + B)) * 100%
Accuracy	The overall proportion of correctly classified articles (both relevant and non-relevant) [59].	Provides a general measure of a filter's correctness, but can be misleading if the prevalence of relevant articles is very low.	Accuracy = ((A + D) / (A+B+C+D)) * 100%

In the formulas above, the variables are defined from a contingency table:

• A (True Positives): Number of relevant articles retrieved.
• B (False Positives): Number of non-relevant articles retrieved.
• C (False Negatives): Number of relevant articles not retrieved.
• D (True Negatives): Number of non-relevant articles not retrieved.

The Sensitivity-Specificity Trade-Off in Practice

There is an inherent trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. Optimizing for one often compromises the other. A 2005 analytical survey demonstrated that the most sensitive possible strategy for retrieving systematic reviews achieved 99.9% sensitivity but a 52% specificity, meaning about half of the retrieved records were not systematic reviews. Conversely, a strategy designed to balance these metrics achieved 98% sensitivity and 90.8% specificity [58]. A 2025 validation study in dental journals developed a high-specificity filter for systematic reviews that achieved 96.7% sensitivity and 99.1% specificity, demonstrating that highly accurate filters are achievable [59].

Experimental Protocol: Developing and Validating a Search Strategy

This protocol outlines a systematic method for creating and empirically testing a search strategy, suitable for systematic reviews and evidence maps in environmental research.

The following diagram illustrates the end-to-end process for developing and validating a systematic search strategy.

Detailed Protocol Steps

Step 1: Define a Clear and Focused Question

• Objective: Formulate a research question that is specific enough to be answerable yet broad enough to yield a meaningful body of literature.
• Application for Environmental Evidence: For a Systematic Evidence Map (SEM) on "pollution control measures," a focused question might be: "What is the evidence for the effectiveness of phytoremediation in reducing heavy metal concentration in freshwater sediments?" [11] [9].

Step 2: Identify Key Concepts and Choose Search Elements

• Objective: Deconstruct the question into core concepts (e.g., Population, Intervention, Context). Critically evaluate which concepts are essential to include in the search to avoid unnecessary complexity [9].
• Protocol:
  • List all concepts from the question.
  • Plot them based on their importance and specificity (number of hits a key term retrieves).
  • Start the search with the most important and specific concepts, adding more general ones only if the result set is too small. This prevents the strategy from being overly restrictive from the outset [9].

Step 3: Comprehensive Term Harvesting

• Objective: Identify all potential search terms, including controlled vocabulary and natural language, for each key concept.
• Protocol:
  • Thesaurus Terms: Search the database's controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH in MEDLINE, Emtree in Embase) for relevant subject headings [9] [60].
  • Free-Text Synonyms: Extract synonyms, acronyms, and related terms from the thesaurus entry's "entry terms" or "synonyms" list [9].
  • Gold Standard Articles: Analyze the titles, abstracts, and keywords of known relevant articles ("gold standard" articles) to identify additional terms [60].
  • Text Mining Tools: Utilize tools like the Yale MeSH Analyzer or PubMed PubReMiner to aggregate and analyze terms from a set of relevant PubMed records [60].

Step 4: Build Search Strategy Syntax

• Objective: Combine the harvested terms into a formal search string using Boolean operators and field codes.
• Protocol:
  • Document in a Log: Build the strategy in a text document (e.g., Word) to ensure reproducibility and control, rather than directly in the database interface [9].
  • Use Boolean Logic: Combine terms within a concept using OR. Combine different concepts using AND.
  • Apply Field Codes: Use appropriate field codes (e.g., [MeSH], [tiab] for title/abstract in PubMed) to target where terms are searched.
  • Use Parentheses: Nest terms correctly using parentheses to control the logic order, e.g., (term1 OR term2) AND (term3 OR term4).
  • Check for Errors: Use tools like BalanceBraces.com to check for nesting errors in parentheses [60].

Step 5: Strategy Validation and Optimization

• Objective: Evaluate and refine the search strategy's performance against a gold standard set of articles.
• Gold Standard Creation: For a rigorous validation, create a gold standard by manually reading the full text of all articles published in a set of high-yield journals over a specific period (e.g., one year) and classifying them by study type [58] [59].
• Optimization Technique: A key method is to compare results retrieved by thesaurus terms with those retrieved by free-text words. If free-text searching finds relevant articles not captured by thesaurus terms, the index terms from those articles should be considered for inclusion in the strategy [9].

Step 6: Final Translation and Testing

• Objective: Adapt the validated search strategy for other databases.
• Protocol:
  • Translate Syntax: Adjust field codes and syntax to match the target database (e.g., from PubMed to Ovid EMBASE). Tools like the SR-Accelerator Polyglot can assist with this translation [60].
  • Test Results: Check the translated search in the new database to ensure it retrieves a similar, relevant set of records. Reiterate as necessary.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Search Strategy Development

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Systematic Searching

Tool / Reagent	Function / Application	Example in Environmental Context
Bibliographic Databases	Platforms providing access to scientific literature with indexing and search functionalities.	Embase: Strong coverage of pharmacological/environmental literature. PubMed/MEDLINE: Core biomedical database. Scopus & Web of Science: Multidisciplinary coverage.
Thesauri (Controlled Vocabularies)	Standardized sets of subject headings used to index records, improving search consistency.	MeSH (Medical Subject Headings): Used by NLM for PubMed. Emtree: Thesaurus for Embase, with more specific terms.
Text Mining Tools	Software that analyzes text corpora to identify frequently occurring terms, themes, or patterns.	Yale MeSH Analyzer: Aggregates MeSH terms from known relevant PubMed articles to inform search strategy [60]. Voyant Tools: General text analysis for identifying key words in a set of documents.
Search Strategy Validator (Gold Standard Set)	A benchmark set of articles, established via manual review, against which search performance is measured.	A hand-searched set of all articles from key environmental journals (e.g., from Environment International) classified as systematic reviews, primary studies, etc. [59].
Syntax Translation Tools	Utilities that assist in converting search syntax from one database interface to another.	SR-Accelerator Polyglot: Translates a search string from PubMed to other major databases, maintaining logic [60].

Workflow Diagram: Search Strategy Validation Method

The validation of a search strategy is a critical experimental step to quantify its performance. The following diagram details this process.

This structured approach to developing, documenting, and validating search strategies ensures the production of high-quality, reliable, and reproducible evidence syntheses, forming a solid foundation for scientific research and policy-making in environmental health and drug development.

The search strategy forms the foundational cornerstone of a rigorous systematic review or systematic map (hereafter "evidence synthesis") [61] [2]. In the attempt to arrive at and present a comprehensive, unbiased view of the available evidence, systematic reviewers must follow stringent methodological guidance for each step in the systematic review process [61]. A high-quality search strategy is critical because it minimizes the risk of missing relevant studies while also avoiding the identification of unnecessarily large numbers of irrelevant records [62]. Failing to include relevant information in an evidence synthesis may lead to inaccurate or skewed conclusions and/or changes in conclusions as soon as the omitted information is added [2]. Despite its importance, studies of published systematic reviews show that search strategies often contain errors or are sub-optimal [61] [62]. Peer review of the search strategy is a key method to detect errors in a timely fashion, improve quality, and assure the robustness of the subsequent synthesis [62]. This protocol, framed within the context of systematic searching for environmental evidence, details the application of internal and external feedback mechanisms during the search strategy peer-review process.

Defining Internal and External Feedback in Search Strategy Peer Review

In the context of peer-reviewing search strategies, feedback can be categorized as internal or external, drawing parallels from established concepts in other fields [63] [64].

• Internal Feedback: This refers to the self-regulatory processes conducted by the information specialist or searcher who designed the initial search strategy. It is the process of self-assessment and critical evaluation of one's own work before it is submitted for external scrutiny. Internal feedback involves the searcher organizing, monitoring, and regulating their own search strategy development process [64]. This includes checking for spelling errors, verifying the logical structure of Boolean operators, ensuring appropriate subject headings are used, and confirming the search accurately translates the research question [62]. Effective internal feedback is a metacognitive process that helps identify and correct obvious errors, thereby raising the baseline quality of the strategy before it is shared.

• External Feedback: This is the formal, structured input provided by a second party, typically another information specialist or an experienced searcher, who was not involved in the original search strategy design [62]. External feedback forms a scaffolding mechanism to assist the original searcher in reflecting on and monitoring whether a discrepancy exists between the current strategy and the ideal, comprehensive, and unbiased search [64]. It provides an objective perspective on the search strategy, identifying potential errors, omissions, or areas for improvement that the original searcher may have overlooked due to familiarity or cognitive bias [63]. Within the external feedback process, tools like the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) Evidence-Based Checklist provide a structured framework for delivering this feedback [61] [62].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the continuous interplay between internal and external feedback during the search strategy development and peer-review process.

The PRESS Checklist as a Framework for External Feedback

The Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) Evidence-Based Checklist is a validated tool designed to facilitate a structured and comprehensive external peer review of electronic search strategies [61] [62]. The original PRESS checklist was updated in 2015, and the current guideline incorporates six key domains for reviewer practice [62]. External feedback should be solicited and provided using this structured instrument to ensure consistency and completeness.

Table 1: The PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist Domains and Review Objectives

Domain Number	Domain Name	Key Review Objectives and Questions
1	Translation of the research question	Does the search strategy accurately reflect the review's PECO/PICO/SECO elements? Are all key concepts captured? [62] [2]
2	Boolean and proximity operators	Are Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) used correctly? Is the logical structure sound and free from errors? Are proximity operators used appropriately where needed? [62]
3	Subject headings	Are relevant controlled vocabulary terms (e.g., MeSH, Emtree) included for each database? Are they exploded/focused appropriately? Are any relevant headings missed? [61] [62]
4	Text word searching (free text)	Are sufficient synonyms, acronyms, and related terms included? Are truncation and wildcards used properly? Are spelling variants (UK/US) accounted for? [61] [62]
5	Spelling, syntax, and line numbers	Is the search strategy free from spelling errors? Is the syntax correct for the specific database interface? Are line numbers referenced correctly in multi-line strategies? [61] [62]
6	Limits and filters	Are any applied limits (e.g., by date, language, publication type) justified and appropriate for the review question? Could they introduce bias? [61] [62]

Quantitative Evidence Supporting Search Strategy Peer Review

Empirical evidence underscores the necessity of formal peer review for search strategies. The following table summarizes key quantitative findings from studies investigating errors in search strategies.

Table 2: Summary of Quantitative Evidence on Search Strategy Errors

Study Reference	Focus of Investigation	Sample Size	Key Finding on Error Prevalence
Sampson & McGowan (2006) [62]	Common errors in search strategies	Not Specified	Found principal mistakes were spelling errors, missed spelling variants, truncation errors, logical operator errors, use of wrong line numbers, and missed/correct use of subject headings.
Franco et al. (2018) [62]	Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions	70 Reviews	73% of reviews contained problems in search strategy design. 53% contained problems that could limit both sensitivity and precision.
Salvador-Olivan et al. (2019) [62]	Systematic reviews in MEDLINE/PubMed	137 Reviews	92.7% of included systematic reviews contained some type of error. 78.1% of these errors affected recall (sensitivity).
AHRQ Study (2012) [61]	Time burden of peer review using PRESS	Pilot Study	The time burden for the external peer review process using the PRESS checklist was found to be less than two hours per strategy.

Detailed Protocol for Internal and External Feedback

This section provides a step-by-step experimental protocol for implementing a robust peer-review process for search strategies within an environmental evidence context.

Protocol: Internal and External Peer Review of Search Strategies

Objective: To ensure the search strategy for an evidence synthesis is comprehensive, unbiased, and methodologically sound before execution, through a structured process of internal and external feedback.

Primary Applications: Systematic Reviews, Systematic Maps, and other evidence syntheses requiring comprehensive literature searches, particularly within environmental management and policy.

Pre-requisites:

• A draft search strategy has been developed for at least one bibliographic database (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science, AGRICOLA) based on a finalized PECO/PICO question.
• Access to an information specialist or experienced searcher to act as an external peer reviewer.
• The PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist is available for use.

---

Step 1: Conduct Internal Feedback (Self-Review)

• Action: The lead searcher should distance themselves from the draft search strategy for a short period (e.g., 24 hours) before conducting a self-review. Upon returning, they should critically examine the strategy against the PRESS checklist domains.
• Methodology:
  • Check Translation of Question: Verify that all PECO/PICO elements (Population, Exposure/Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) and any relevant context elements are represented by both controlled vocabulary and free-text terms [2].
  • Verify Syntax: Manually check every Boolean operator (AND, OR, NOT), parenthesis, and proximity operator for correctness. Ensure the logic reflects the intended search concept relationships.
  • Review Subject Headings: For each database-specific strategy, confirm that the most relevant subject headings (e.g., MeSH in MEDLINE, Emtree in Embase, Thesaurus terms in Scopus) are included, exploded if appropriate, and combined correctly with free-text terms.
  • Scrutinize Text Words: Brainstorm for missing synonyms, acronyms, and spelling variants (e.g., "behavior" vs. "behaviour"). Check truncation symbols (*, $) and wildcards (?, #) for proper application and potential over-retrieval.
  • Validate Spelling and Structure: Read the search strategy line-by-line to catch spelling errors. If using multiple lines, ensure correct reference to previous set numbers.
• Data Presentation: The searcher should document any revisions made during this internal feedback phase as version control notes.

Step 2: Initiate External Feedback

• Action: The revised search strategy, along with the full review protocol and PECO/PICO question, is submitted to an external peer reviewer. This should occur at the research protocol stage, before searches are finally run [62].
• Methodology: The external reviewer should be an information specialist or searcher who was not involved in the development of the strategy. The reviewer uses the PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist as a structured guide for their evaluation [62].

Step 3: Execute External Peer Review

• Action: The external reviewer conducts the review, providing written comments for each relevant domain of the PRESS checklist.
• Methodology:
  • The reviewer assesses the strategy for the six domains outlined in Table 1.
  • Comments should be specific, constructive, and suggest concrete revisions where possible (e.g., "Consider adding the subject heading [MeSH Term] for Concept X," or "The truncation forest* may retrieve irrelevant records like 'forestry'; consider using forest* AND (ecosystem* OR management)' to focus the search").
  • The reviewer should return the annotated checklist and the marked-up search strategy to the lead searcher.

Step 4: Implement Feedback and Finalize Strategy

• Action: The lead searcher reviews all external feedback, incorporates agreed-upon revisions, and documents all changes.
• Methodology:
  • The lead searcher evaluates each suggestion. If a suggestion is not implemented, the reason should be documented (e.g., "Reviewer suggestion to add term 'X' was not implemented as pilot testing showed it only retrieved irrelevant results").
  • The search strategy is updated to create a final version.
  • The final strategy is run in the target databases. The peer review process, including the tool used (e.g., PRESS 2015) and the acknowledgement of the reviewers, should be reported in the final evidence synthesis manuscript as per PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S guidelines [62].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Search Strategy Peer Review

Tool or Resource Name	Function and Application in Peer Review
PRESS 2015 Checklist [62]	The core tool for structuring external feedback. It ensures a comprehensive and evidence-based review of all critical components of an electronic search strategy.
Bibliographic Database Thesauri (e.g., MeSH, Emtree)	Used to verify the appropriateness and completeness of controlled vocabulary terms selected for each database during both internal and external review.
PRESS Forum [62]	An online community (http://pressforum.pbworks.com) that enables information specialists, particularly those working alone, to submit their search strategies for reciprocal peer review by a colleague.
Reporting Guidelines (PRISMA 2020 & PRISMA-S) [62]	Provide standards for reporting the peer review process in the final manuscript, including specifying the use of the PRESS checklist and acknowledging reviewers.
Text and Reference Management Software (e.g., Microsoft Word with Track Changes, Excel)	Used to document the search strategy, manage versions, and clearly communicate suggested revisions and comments between the searcher and the external reviewer.

Within evidence-based research, the rigorous synthesis of existing literature is a cornerstone for informing policy, practice, and future scientific direction. This is particularly critical in fields like environmental science and drug development, where decisions can have far-reaching consequences. Two predominant methodologies for evidence synthesis are the comprehensive systematic review and the rapid review. While both employ systematic and transparent methods, they are distinguished by their core objectives: thoroughness and minimization of bias versus timeliness and resource efficiency [65] [66]. This article provides a detailed comparative analysis of these two approaches, framing the discussion within the context of systematic searching for environmental evidence and offering structured application notes and protocols for researchers and scientists.

Defining the Review Types and Their Core Methodological Differences

Comprehensive Systematic Review

A systematic review is a thorough, detailed process designed to gather and assess all relevant research on a specific topic. Its primary goal is to provide a complete and unbiased picture of the available evidence by following a structured, pre-defined protocol. This methodology is valued for its high reliability, as it meticulously pulls together research, analyzes it carefully, and employs methods specifically aimed at minimizing bias. Systematic reviews are often considered the gold standard for informing critical decisions in healthcare, environmental management, and social sciences, but they are resource-intensive, typically taking anywhere from 12 to 24 months to complete [65] [66] [67].

Rapid Review

A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis that streamlines the systematic review process to produce findings in a timely manner, often to meet the needs of pressing decision-making timelines. It follows the same fundamental principles of being systematic and transparent but simplifies or omits certain steps to accelerate the process. Rapid reviews are particularly useful during public health crises, in fast-moving policy environments, or for quickly evaluating emerging research topics. They are generally completed in a matter of weeks or a few months, acknowledging a potential trade-off between speed and comprehensiveness [65] [68] [66].

Table 1: Core Characteristics of Systematic Reviews vs. Rapid Reviews

Feature	Systematic Review	Rapid Review
Primary Goal	Complete, unbiased summary of all evidence [65]	Timely evidence for speedy decision-making [67]
Timeline	Months to years (often 12-24 months) [65] [66]	Weeks to a few months (often ≤4 months) [65] [66]
Scope	Comprehensive; aims to include all relevant studies [65]	Narrower; often focused on a specific, immediate question [65]
Resource Intensity	High (requires a team, extensive searching, duplicate reviewing) [69]	Lower due to simplified processes [66]
Risk of Bias	Actively minimized through extensive search and rigorous methods [65]	Potentially higher due to methodological simplifications [66] [67]
Ideal Use Case	Clinical guidelines, regulatory decisions, foundational evidence [69] [66]	Emerging topics, policy crises, rapid program evaluation [65] [66]

Quantitative Impact of Methodological Choices

The methodological shortcuts employed in rapid reviews are not without consequence. A large-scale simulation study using data from the Cochrane Library quantified the impact of various common rapid methods on meta-analysis results for binary outcomes [69]. The findings highlight the tangible risk associated with streamlined approaches.

Table 2: Impact of Simulated Rapid Review Methods on Meta-Analysis Results (Based on [69])

Rapid Review Method Simulated	% of Meta-Analyses with ≥20% Change in Odds Ratio	% of Meta-Analyses Where Data was Completely Lost	% of Meta-Analyses with Changed Statistical Significance
Searching only PubMed	~10%	3.7%	6.5%
Excluding studies older than 10 years	13.5%	14.4%	16.7%
Excluding studies with <100 participants	17.6%	25.5%	25.9%
Including only the largest trial	42.9%	44.7%	38.6%

The study concluded that while searching only PubMed carried the smallest risk of change, it still introduced a ~10% risk of the primary outcome odds ratio changing by ≥20% [69]. This level of risk might be acceptable for scoping or urgent decision-making but is likely unacceptable for high-stakes domains like drug licensing or national clinical guidelines.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

A rigorous protocol, developed and registered before the review begins, is the foundation of a high-quality evidence synthesis. It minimizes ad-hoc decisions and reviewer bias, ensuring the process is transparent and reproducible [70] [18].

Protocol Development Workflow

The following diagram outlines the critical steps in developing a protocol for both systematic and rapid reviews, highlighting steps that may be streamlined in a rapid review.

Protocol Core Components

Both systematic and rapid review protocols should detail the following components, with the level of thoroughness being a key differentiator:

• Research Question & Eligibility Criteria: The question must be focused and answerable, commonly structured using a framework like PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) or, for environmental contexts, PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) [2] [18] [13]. The eligibility criteria (inclusion/exclusion) must be explicitly defined, covering aspects like study designs, populations, time periods, and languages.
• Search Strategy: This is a critical component where systematic and rapid reviews diverge significantly.
  • Systematic Review Approach: The strategy should be developed with the goal of maximizing retrieval of relevant literature. This involves using multiple bibliographic databases (e.g., PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, subject-specific databases), searching for grey literature (e.g., clinical trial registries, government reports, theses), and often hand-searching reference lists of included studies [2] [13]. The search strategy should be peer-reviewed, for instance, using a checklist like PRISMA-P [70].
  • Rapid Review Approach: To save time, the search is often streamlined by limiting the number of databases searched (e.g., searching only PubMed), potentially restricting grey literature searches, and applying more stringent date or language filters [65] [69] [66].
• Screening, Data Extraction, and Quality Assessment: The protocol must specify the process for selecting studies, extracting data, and appraising the risk of bias in included studies.
  • Systematic Review Approach: Typically involves duplicate, independent work at each stage (title/abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, quality assessment). Disagreements are resolved by consensus or a third reviewer [68]. Standardized tools (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, ROBINS-I) are used for critical appraisal.
  • Rapid Review Approach: Often employs single reviewer screening and extraction, with a second reviewer verifying a subset of the work, or uses a single reviewer for each step [66]. This is a major source of potential time savings but also introduces a risk of error.
• Data Synthesis Plan: The protocol should state the planned methods for synthesizing results, whether through narrative summary, quantitative meta-analysis, or both.

Protocol Registration and Reporting

Registering the protocol on a platform like PROSPERO, the Open Science Framework (OSF), or INPLASY before commencing the review is considered good practice. It enhances transparency, reduces duplication of effort, and guards against outcome reporting bias [70] [18].

Conducting a robust evidence synthesis requires a suite of methodological "reagents" and tools. The following table details key resources for executing a review.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Resources for Evidence Synthesis

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Review Type
PICO/PECO Framework [18] [13]	Methodological Framework	Structures the research question into key concepts to guide search strategy development.	Foundational for both Systematic and Rapid Reviews
Boolean Operators (AND, OR, NOT) [2] [13]	Search Syntax	Combines search terms to broaden or narrow search results logically.	Critical for both
PRISMA-P Checklist [70]	Reporting Guideline	Ensures the review protocol includes all essential elements for transparency and completeness.	Highly recommended for Systematic, useful for Rapid
Test List of Known Studies [13]	Search Validation	A benchmark set of relevant articles, gathered independently, used to assess the performance of the search strategy.	Best practice for Systematic Reviews
Covidence [70]	Software Platform	A web-based tool that streamlines the screening, quality assessment, and data extraction phases of a review.	Efficient for both, can save time in Rapid Reviews
RevMan (Review Manager) [18]	Software Platform	Cochrane's software for preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews, including meta-analysis.	Standard for Systematic Reviews, especially in health
PROSPERO Registry [70] [18]	Protocol Registry	International database for pre-registering systematic reviews to reduce duplication and bias.	Mandatory for many Systematic Reviews, recommended for Rapid

Search Strategy Workflow and Bias Mitigation

Developing and executing the search strategy is a multi-stage process where rigorous planning is essential to minimize biases that could skew the review's conclusions.

Search Strategy Development and Execution Workflow

Key Biases and Mitigation Strategies

The workflow must actively account for and mitigate several systematic errors:

• Publication Bias: The tendency for studies with statistically significant ("positive") results to be published more readily than those with non-significant ("negative") results. Mitigation: Actively search for grey literature (e.g., theses, reports, conference proceedings) and studies in journals dedicated to null results [2] [13].
• Language Bias: The over-reliance on English-language publications, which may omit relevant studies published in other languages. Mitigation: Where resources allow, search national and regional databases (e.g., CiNii for Japanese research) and consider including studies in multiple languages [2] [13].
• Temporal Bias: The oversight of older but potentially relevant studies in favor of more recent publications. Mitigation: Ensure the search does not impose arbitrary date restrictions unless justified by the research question and includes older literature [2].

The choice between a comprehensive systematic review and a rapid review is not a matter of one being inherently superior to the other, but rather a strategic decision based on the context of the evidence need. Systematic reviews provide the most reliable and unbiased foundation for high-stakes environmental policy or drug development decisions. In contrast, rapid reviews offer a valid and pragmatic solution for generating timely evidence under tight deadlines, such as during public health emergencies or for internal program evaluation, with an accepted trade-off in comprehensiveness. Researchers must carefully weigh the requirements for timeliness, resource availability, and tolerance for potential bias or error against the consequences of the decisions the review will inform. By adhering to structured protocols, transparently reporting methodological choices and limitations, and understanding the quantitative implications of different search methods, scientists can ensure their evidence syntheses are fit for purpose and contribute meaningfully to advancing research and practice.

Validating AI and Machine Learning Tools for Evidence Screening

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) into evidence synthesis represents a paradigm shift for environmental research methodologies. This process, crucial for informing policy and drug development, is often hampered by the sheer volume of scientific literature, making it time- and resource-intensive [71]. AI tools, particularly large language models (LLMs) and specialized automated screening systems, promise to enhance efficiency by assisting in tasks such as literature screening and data extraction [72] [73]. However, their performance is not infallible, and inconsistent reliability poses a significant risk to the validity of systematic reviews [72]. Unvalidated tools can introduce errors and biases, leading to spurious conclusions that may misdirect critical research and decision-making in environmental science and healthcare [74] [75]. Therefore, a rigorous and standardized protocol for validating these tools is not merely beneficial but essential. This document provides detailed Application Notes and Protocols for the validation of AI and ML tools used in the evidence screening phase of systematic reviews, framed within the context of environmental evidence methods research. The guidance is designed for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals seeking to adopt AI tools responsibly, ensuring that their application enhances both the efficiency and the integrity of evidence synthesis.

Performance Benchmarks: Quantitative Comparison of AI Screening Tools

A critical first step in validation is understanding the current performance landscape of available AI tools. Recent diagnostic accuracy studies have evaluated several AI-powered tools against human reviewers in classifying literature, such as identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The table below synthesizes key performance metrics from such studies, providing a benchmark for comparison.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Selected AI Tools in Literature Screening

AI Tool	Type	False Negative Fraction (FNF) for RCTs	False Positive Fraction (FPF) for Non-RCTs	Screening Speed (seconds/article)
RobotSearch	Fully Automatic (RCT-specific)	6.4% (95% CI: 4.6% to 8.9%)	22.2% (95% CI: 18.8% to 26.1%)	Not Specified
ChatGPT 4.0	General-Purpose LLM	9.8% (95% CI: 7.6% to 12.7%)	3.8% (95% CI: 2.4% to 5.9%)	1.3 s
Claude 3.5	General-Purpose LLM	8.2% (95% CI: 6.2% to 10.9%)	3.4% (95% CI: 2.1% to 5.4%)	6.0 s
Gemini 1.5	General-Purpose LLM	13.0% (95% CI: 10.3% to 16.3%)	2.8% (95% CI: 1.7% to 4.7%)	1.2 s
DeepSeek-V3	General-Purpose LLM	7.8% (95% CI: 5.8% to 10.4%)	3.6% (95% CI: 2.3% to 5.6%)	2.6 s

Data adapted from a diagnostic accuracy study on AI-powered automated tools for literature screening [71].

Interpretation of Benchmarks:

• False Negative Fraction (FNF) is the proportion of relevant studies (e.g., RCTs) that the tool incorrectly excludes. A low FNF is paramount, as missing relevant studies undermines the review's comprehensiveness. RobotSearch demonstrates the lowest FNF, a key strength for a specialized tool [71].
• False Positive Fraction (FPF) is the proportion of irrelevant studies that the tool incorrectly includes, adding to the manual screening workload. The general-purpose LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek) show significantly lower FPF than RobotSearch, meaning they create less redundancy [71].
• Screening Speed indicates potential efficiency gains. All tools screened articles in seconds, far quicker than human reviewers [71].
• Overall Conclusion: Current AI tools demonstrate "commendable performance" but are not yet suitable as standalone solutions. They function best as auxiliary aids within a hybrid, human-in-the-loop approach [71] [72]. A separate systematic review confirms that while generative AI shows promise for tasks like data extraction, its use in literature search and study selection is not recommended due to "inconsistent reliability" and the potential to retrieve non-relevant articles [72].

Experimental Protocol for Validating AI Screening Tools

This protocol provides a step-by-step methodology for conducting a local validation study to assess the performance of an AI screening tool for a specific evidence synthesis project in environmental research. It is based on best practices for AI model validation and diagnostic accuracy studies [71] [75].

The following diagram illustrates the core workflow for the validation of an AI screening tool, from establishing the reference standard to final deployment.

Step-by-Step Method Details

Step 1: Define Validation Objectives and Success Criteria

• Objective: Determine if the AI tool can reliably exclude irrelevant studies during title/abstract screening for a specific systematic review topic (e.g., "Effects of Microplastics on Soil Invertebrates").
• Success Criteria: Define minimum performance thresholds a priori. Based on benchmarks, targets may include an FNF of <5-10% (to minimize missed studies) and an FPF of <25% (to manage workload) [71] [75]. Align these thresholds with the project's risk tolerance.

Step 2: Prepare and Validate the Dataset

• Cohort Creation: Extract a representative sample of citations from your literature search results. A sample of 1,000 publications, balanced between relevant and irrelevant records if possible, is a robust starting point [71].
• Reference Standard: Two experienced human reviewers independently screen this sample using established systematic review procedures (e.g., using tools like Rayyan). Discrepancies are resolved by a third senior methodologist. This creates the "ground truth" against which the AI tool will be measured [71] [73].
• Data Splitting: Use a simple random sample of the screened cohort for validation. To maximize data use in smaller samples, k-fold cross-validation (e.g., 5-fold) is recommended [75].

Step 3: Execute AI Screening with Engineered Prompts

• Tool Application: Input the title and abstract of each publication in the validation set into the AI tool.
• Prompt Engineering: For LLMs like ChatGPT, use a structured, logical prompt. The prompt below, based on research, is designed to elicit a consistent, JSON-formatted output [71].

• Output Recording: Record the AI's "yes/no" decision for each publication.

Step 4: Analyze Results and Compare to Reference

• Create a 2x2 Contingency Table: Cross-tabulate the AI tool's decisions against the reference standard decisions.
• Calculate Performance Metrics:
  • Sensitivity: Proportion of truly relevant studies correctly included by the AI. (Should be high, ideally >90-95%).
  • Specificity: Proportion of truly irrelevant studies correctly excluded by the AI.
  • False Negative Fraction (FNF): 1 - Sensitivity. The critical metric for missed studies.
  • False Positive Fraction (FPF): 1 - Specificity. Induces unnecessary workload.
• Statistical Analysis: Calculate 95% confidence intervals for these metrics to understand the precision of your estimates [71].

Step 5: Implement a Hybrid Workflow

• If the tool's performance meets your pre-defined success criteria, integrate it into a hybrid workflow. In this model, the AI tool performs an initial screening, but all records it excludes are subsequently verified by a human reviewer to catch any false negatives [71] [73]. This approach balances efficiency with safety.

Research Reagent Solutions: Key Tools for AI-Assisted Evidence Synthesis

The following table details essential software tools and frameworks that function as the "research reagents" for developing and applying AI in evidence synthesis.

Table 2: Essential Tools and Platforms for AI-Assisted Evidence Synthesis

Tool / Platform	Type / Category	Primary Function in Evidence Synthesis
Rayyan	Semi-Automated Screening Tool	A web-tool designed to speed up the process of screening and selecting studies. It allows for collaborative double-screening and provides AI rankings to predict relevance [73].
ASReview	Open-Source ML Screening Tool	An active learning tool that prioritizes records during title/abstract screening. It interactively learns from the researcher's decisions to surface the most likely relevant studies first [73].
RobotReviewer	Automated Risk-of-Bias Tool	A machine learning system that automatically extracts data concerning trial conduct (PICO elements) and assesses the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials [73].
Galileo LLM Studio	LLM Validation & Monitoring Platform	A specialized platform for validating and monitoring the performance of large language models. It offers features for detecting hallucinations, measuring biases, and analyzing model outputs [75].
The Nested Model Tool	AI Design & Validation Framework	An online tool that implements a layered framework (Regulations, Domain, Data, Model, Prediction) for designing and validating AI applications in compliance with regulatory requirements [76].
Abstrackr	ML-Aided Screening Tool	An online tool that aids in citation screening by using machine learning to predict the relevance of unscreened records based on user decisions [73].

The Nested Model for Comprehensive AI System Validation

For a holistic validation that goes beyond mere performance metrics to include regulatory compliance and ethical considerations, the Nested Model for AI design and validation is a robust framework. This model is particularly relevant for high-stakes domains like healthcare and environmental policy [76].

The model's strength lies in its structured, layered approach, which facilitates collaboration between AI practitioners and domain experts (e.g., environmental scientists). The following diagram maps the logical relationships between these layers and the key questions addressed at each stage.

Layer-by-Layer Validation Guide:

• Regulations Layer: Identify relevant guidelines (e.g., EU requirements for Trustworthy AI, NICE position statements) and categorize key requirements into ethical (e.g., privacy, societal well-being) and technical (e.g., robustness, fairness) [76] [73].
• Domain Layer: Ensure the AI tool addresses a clinically or environmentally meaningful problem. Focus on bias detection and mitigation specific to the environmental domain, and ensure data represents the target population [76].
• Data Layer: Implement strict data governance to ensure compliance with regulations like HIPAA or institutional data policies. Techniques like federated learning can be used to train models without centralizing sensitive data, thus preserving privacy [76].
• Model Layer: Ensure technical robustness, fairness, and explainability. Use methods like SHAP or LIME to interpret model decisions. Conduct sensitivity analysis to test model stability [76] [74] [75].
• Prediction Layer: Validate that the model's outputs are actionable and useful for end-users (e.g., environmental researchers). Implement human-in-the-loop oversight to ensure final control over the evidence synthesis process [76].

Systematic reviews (SRs) in environmental science are challenging due to diverse methodologies, terminologies, and study designs across disciplines such as hydrology, ecology, public health, landscape, and urban planning [77]. A major limitation is that inconsistent application of eligibility criteria in evidence-screening affects the reproducibility and transparency of SRs [77]. Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, offers potential to streamline SR processes by automating evidence screening through machine learning and natural language processing [77] [78]. This case study evaluates the performance of a fine-tuned ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo model for evidence screening within a SR investigating the relationship between stream fecal coliform concentrations and land use and land cover (LULC) [77]. The findings provide a structured framework for applying eligibility criteria consistently, improving evidence screening efficiency, reducing labor and costs, and informing LLM integration in environmental SRs [77].

Experimental Protocol: AI-Assisted Screening Workflow

Research Team Composition and Domain Expertise Integration

The research team comprised six members: three domain expert reviewers and three technical specialists [77]. The domain experts were responsible for defining eligibility criteria and performing manual literature screening, while technical specialists supported model development and analysis [77]. Domain expertise was integrated through an iterative process where reviewers established consensus-based eligibility criteria through multiple rounds of independent article assessment and group discussion [77].

Search Strategy and Literature Identification

Article searches were conducted using Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and PubMed databases [77]. Search queries incorporated combinations of keywords including "land use" (and synonyms), "fecal coliform" (and spelling variants), and "stream" (and synonyms) combined using "AND" operators [77]. The initial search on March 19, 2024, identified 1,361 articles, which were deduplicated and filtered to 711 English articles with abstracts for screening [77].

Fine-Tuning Process for ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo

The ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo model underwent light fine-tuning using expert-reviewed training data [77]. A binary-labeled dataset of 130 articles (labeled "Yes" or "No" for relevance) was split into:

• 70-article training set (35 "Yes" and 35 "No" articles)
• 20-article validation set
• 40-article test set [77]

Key hyperparameters were adjusted to optimize performance:

• Epochs: Multiple passes to balance underfitting and overfitting
• Batch size: Balanced processing efficiency and memory requirements
• Learning rate: Controlled weight update step size
• Temperature: Set to 0.4 to control response randomness
• Top_p: Set to 0.8 for token selection based on cumulative probability [77]

The model's stochastic nature was accounted for by performing 15 runs per screening decision, with the majority result (≥8 runs) determining the final output [77].

Screening Workflow Implementation

The screening workflow comprised three main stages:

• Pre-screening stage: Literature identification and preparation
• Step 1 (Title and abstract screening): Application of initial eligibility criteria
• Step 2 (Full-text screening): Application of refined criteria to full articles [77]

Eligibility criteria were translated into specific prompts for each screening stage, with the full-text screening prompt updated to focus on results and discussion sections [77].

Figure 1: AI-Assisted Evidence Screening Workflow

Performance Results and Quantitative Analysis

Screening Accuracy and Agreement Metrics

The fine-tuned ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo model demonstrated substantial agreement with human reviewers at title/abstract review and moderate agreement at full-text review [77]. Performance was evaluated using Cohen's Kappa (for two raters) and Fleiss's Kappa (for multiple raters) statistics on a 40-article test set [77].

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Fine-Tuned ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo in Evidence Screening

Screening Stage	Agreement Level	Statistical Measure	Performance Value	Comparison Method
Title/Abstract Screening	Substantial agreement	Cohen's Kappa/Fleiss's Kappa	Reported as "substantial"	Expert reviewer consensus
Full-text Screening	Moderate agreement	Cohen's Kappa/Fleiss's Kappa	Reported as "moderate"	Expert reviewer consensus
Internal Consistency	Maintained	Majority decision across 15 runs	Consistent outputs	Model self-consistency

Comparative Performance Across GPT Versions

Research in other domains demonstrates the performance evolution across GPT versions for systematic review screening. A study on electric vehicle charging infrastructure demand with nearly 12,000 records showed significant improvements across model versions [78].

Table 2: Comparative Performance of GPT Models in Title/Abstract Screening

GPT Model Version	Release Timeline	Recall at 0.5 Cutoff	First False Negative Error	Percentage Screened Out without FN Error
gpt-3.5-0311	Early 2023	100%	Probability cutoff 0.4	9.5% (1,100 of 11,984)
gpt-3.5-0613	Mid-2023	100%	Probability cutoff 0.7	18% (2,300 of 11,984)
gpt-4-1106	Late 2023	100%	Probability cutoff 0.7	55% (6,700 of 11,984)

Efficiency and Workload Reduction

The AI-assisted approach demonstrated significant potential for reducing manual screening workload. In the environmental case study, the model screened 581 articles at the title/abstract stage after training on 130 articles [77]. External research indicates that GPT-4 could save 50% of manual screening time at 100% recall, and up to 75% of time while maintaining 95% recall [78].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials and Tools for AI-Assisted Evidence Screening

Tool/Category	Specific Implementation	Function/Purpose
LLM Platform	ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo (fine-tuned)	Core AI model for automated screening decisions [77]
Reference Management	Zotero (version 6.0.36)	Article management, organization, and deduplication [77]
Statistical Analysis	RStudio (version 4.1.2)	Statistical analysis using Cohen's Kappa and Fleiss's Kappa metrics [77]
Data Processing	Excel	Data management and organization of screening results [77]
Database Sources	Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, PubMed	Comprehensive literature searching across disciplines [77]
Prompt Engineering	Structured eligibility criteria prompts	Translating domain expertise into AI-understandable instructions [77]
Validation Framework	Training/validation/test split (70/20/40 articles)	Model performance evaluation and optimization [77]

Technical Protocols for Implementation

Domain Knowledge Integration Protocol

• Expert Panel Assembly: Form a team comprising domain experts (environmental scientists, hydrologists, etc.) and technical specialists (data scientists, statisticians) [77]
• Eligibility Criteria Development: Conduct multiple rounds (3-4) of independent article assessment and group discussion to establish consensus-based criteria [77]
• Prompt Formulation: Translate finalized eligibility criteria into structured prompts for AI screening, with separate prompts for title/abstract and full-text stages [77]

Model Fine-Tuning Protocol

• Training Data Preparation:

  • Randomly select 130+ articles representing the target literature
  • Have domain experts create binary labels ("Include"/"Exclude")
  • Split data into balanced training (70 articles), validation (20 articles), and test sets (40 articles) [77]

• Hyperparameter Optimization:

  • Set temperature to 0.4 for balanced randomness
  • Set top_p to 0.8 for focused token selection
  • Adjust epochs to prevent underfitting/overfitting
  • Optimize batch size for processing efficiency
  • Tune learning rate for stable convergence [77]

• Stochastic Accounting:

  • Perform 15 independent runs per screening decision
  • Apply majority voting rule (≥8 consistent results)
  • Record consistency metrics across runs [77]

Validation and Quality Assurance Protocol

• Statistical Validation:

  • Calculate Cohen's Kappa for agreement between AI and primary reviewer
  • Compute Fleiss's Kappa for multiple reviewer agreement
  • Assess model internal consistency across multiple runs [77]

• Performance Benchmarking:

  • Establish baseline performance with test set
  • Compare recall/specificity metrics across model versions
  • Evaluate time savings relative to manual screening [77] [78]

Figure 2: Model Fine-Tuning and Validation Protocol

This case study demonstrates that fine-tuned ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo can achieve substantial agreement with human reviewers in title/abstract screening and moderate agreement in full-text screening for environmental systematic reviews [77]. The AI-assisted framework maintains internal consistency and provides a structured approach for managing interdisciplinary disagreements in eligibility criteria application [77]. Integration of domain knowledge through expert-defined criteria and iterative model refinement is crucial for success in environmentally complex research domains [77]. Recent advancements in GPT-4 show even greater promise, with potential to screen out 55% of references without missing relevant studies [78]. This methodology represents a significant advancement for systematic searching in environmental evidence methods research, offering improved efficiency, consistency, and scalability for evidence synthesis across diverse environmental disciplines.

Conclusion

Systematic searching is the foundational step that determines the validity and reliability of any environmental evidence synthesis. A rigorous approach, built on a structured PECO/PICO framework, comprehensive sourcing, and diligent bias mitigation, is non-negotiable for producing evidence that can robustly inform drug development and public health policy. The field is evolving, with emerging technologies like AI-assisted screening offering promising avenues to enhance efficiency and consistency, particularly for large, interdisciplinary reviews. Future efforts must focus on refining these tools, developing environmental-health-specific guidelines, and fostering closer collaboration between researchers, information specialists, and policymakers to ensure that scientific evidence is not only robust but also timely and actionable in addressing critical environmental health challenges.

References

• 1. Systematic Review Protocol | Environmental Evidence [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines/preparing-your-manuscript/systematic-review-protocol]
• 2. Systematic searching for environmental evidence using ... [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-017-0099-6]
• 3. Literature search: Simple rules for confronting the unknown [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9485859/]
• 4. Use of a search summary table to improve systematic review ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7772975/]
• 5. A comprehensive guide to conduct a systematic review and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12366998/]
• 6. Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice ... [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-023-00302-5]
• 7. Enhancing systematic literature review adapting 'double ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11625145/]
• 8. How to write a search strategy for your systematic review [https://www.covidence.org/blog/how-to-write-a-search-strategy-for-your-systematic-review/]
• 9. an efficient and complete method to develop literature ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6148622/]
• 10. Systematic Reviews for Health: Building Search Strategies [https://utas.libguides.com/SystematicReviews/SearchStrategies]
• 11. Guidance to undertaking systematic evidence maps [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025005781]
• 12. Systematic Review | Environmental Evidence - BioMed Central [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines/preparing-your-manuscript/systematic-review]
• 13. 4. Conducting a Search [https://environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors/4-conducting-a-search/]
• 14. Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10797710/]
• 15. Protocol for a systematic evidence map of environmental ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025005902]
• 16. Develop a Protocol - Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Review ... [https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/literature_review/develop_protocol]
• 17. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences | Environmental Evidence | Full Text [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6]
• 18. Doing a systematic review: Step 1: creating a protocol ... [https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/systematic-review/protocol]
• 19. Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6908441/]
• 20. Evidence Based Medicine: The PICO Framework [https://libguides.mssm.edu/ebm/ebp_pico]
• 21. How to use the PICO Framework to Aid Critical Appraisal [https://casp-uk.net/pico-framework/]
• 22. Guidance to undertaking systematic evidence maps [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41038065/]
• 23. 7 Best Comparison Charts for Effective Data Visualization [https://ninjatables.com/types-of-comparison-charts/?srsltid=AfmBOorZqd2TkNnCRTWcTzcta9W7t-J2MzfQxBS6Ri-PMr_yBQ_kUMFd]
• 24. Utilizing tables, figures, charts and graphs to enhance the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10394528/]
• 25. Charts vs. Tables: When to Use One Over the Other? [https://wpdatatables.com/charts-vs-tables/]
• 26. Environmental Evidence: Home page [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/]
• 27. Comprehensive Search - Systematic Reviews and Meta ... [https://guides.lib.vt.edu/SRMA/Search]
• 28. Writing a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: A Step-by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12402582/]
• 29. PRISMA statement [https://www.prisma-statement.org/]
• 30. An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews [https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/]
• 31. an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33782057/]
• 32. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for ... [https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z]
• 33. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8005925/]
• 34. PRISMA-Search [https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-search]
• 35. Systematic Reviews: PRISMA - Research Guides [https://guides.libraries.emory.edu/SRs/reporting_prisma]
• 36. The transparency and reproducibility of systematic reviews ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073822003024]
• 37. Protocols — PRISMA statement [https://www.prisma-statement.org/protocols]
• 38. Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12459790/]
• 39. Understanding Publication in Population Studies Bias [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/understanding-publication-bias-in-population-studies]
• 40. Linguistic Bias and the Science Lost in Translation [https://asm.org/articles/2025/november/linguistic-bias-and-the-science-lost-in-translatio]
• 41. Multilingual artificial intelligence often reinforces bias - JHU Hub [https://hub.jhu.edu/2025/09/02/multilingual-artificial-intelligence-often-reinforces-bias/]
• 42. A First Look at Temporal Bias in Industrial Image Datasets [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925231225021605]
• 43. Policies and Guidelines - Environment International [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/environment-international/about/policies-and-guidelines/guidance-notes-for-authors-of-systematic-reviews-systematic-evidence-maps-and-related-manuscript-types]
• 44. 40 Common SEO Mistakes: How to Avoid & Fix Them in 2025 [https://searchatlas.com/blog/seo-mistakes/]
• 45. Environmental evidence in action: on the science and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10191815/]
• 46. Translation AI vs Human Translators: What You Need to Know ... [https://www.hicom-asia.com/translation-ai-vs-human-translators-what-you-need-to-know-in-2025/]
• 47. English to Different Languages Translation Guide for 2025 [https://www.convey911.com/blog/english-to-different-languages-translation]
• 48. Mastering Multilingual Translation Services in 2025 [https://www.alphadataleads.com/multilingual-translation-service-providers/mastering-multilingual-translation-services-in-2025-navigating-the-future-of-global-communication/]
• 49. The Rise of Multilingual Marketing: 6 Trends to Watch in 2025 [https://www.motionpoint.com/blog/the-rise-of-multilingual-marketing-6-trends-to-watch-in-2025/]
• 50. Translation Industry Trends for 2025: Here's What to Expect [https://optimational.com/blog/translation-industry-trends/]
• 51. Do environmental systematic reviews impact policy and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901121003749]
• 52. Exposure Assessment Tools by Approaches [https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-approaches]
• 53. Exposure Assessment in Environmental Epidemiology - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233635/]
• 54. Environmental Health Research Methods [https://ysph.yale.edu/research/department-research/environmental-health-sciences/novel-approaches/]
• 55. Review Accessible methods and tools to estimate chemical ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749124008236?via%3Dihub]
• 56. Environmental Data Standards → Term [https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/term/environmental-data-standards/]
• 57. ISO 14033:2019 - Quantitative environmental information [https://www.iso.org/standard/71237.html]
• 58. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC543864/]
• 59. Development and validation of high-sensitivity and high ... [https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-025-02666-3]
• 60. Developing a Search Strategy - Systematic Review [https://lib.guides.umd.edu/SR/search_strategy]
• 61. Introduction - Peer Review of Search Strategies - NCBI - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK98350/]
• 62. Peer reviewing search strategies [https://sites.google.com/york.ac.uk/sureinfo/home/peer-reviewing-search-strategies]
• 63. Internal Feedback: How Is It Different From External ... [https://chisellabs.com/blog/internal-feedback/]
• 64. An analysis of internal and external feedback in self-regulated ... [https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-020-00233-y]
• 65. What's the Difference Between Systematic Reviews and ... [https://www.covidence.org/blog/the-difference-between-systematic-reviews-and-rapid-reviews/]
• 66. Rapid Review vs. Systematic Review: What are the differences? [https://iscollab.org/rapid-review-systematic-review/]
• 67. The Difference Between a Rapid Review vs a Systematic ... [https://www.distillersr.com/resources/systematic-literature-reviews/the-difference-between-a-rapid-review-vs-a-systematic-review]
• 68. Rapid Review Protocol: Steps - Research Guides [https://guides.library.vcu.edu/rapidreview]
• 69. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6524137/]
• 70. LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: Step 2: Develop a Protocol [https://guides.lib.unc.edu/systematic-reviews/protocol]
• 71. Artificial intelligence for the science of evidence synthesis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12376440/]
• 72. Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Assisting ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301525024325]
• 73. AI tools in evidence synthesis - Searching for Systematic ... [https://libguides.kcl.ac.uk/systematicreview/ai]
• 74. Machine Learning in Environmental Research [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37384597/]
• 75. A Step-by-Step Guide to Effective AI Model Validation [https://galileo.ai/blog/ai-model-validation]
• 76. Protocol for implementing the nested model for AI design and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12018536/]
• 77. AI-assisted evidence screening method for systematic reviews ... [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-025-00358-5]
• 78. Testing the utility of GPT for title and abstract screening in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12016299/]