By name: psychbull-literature-search-strategy description: Use when designing and documenting the systematic literature search for a Psychological Bulletin review or meta-analysis — databases, search strings, grey literature, deduplication, and a PRISMA-compliant records flow. Builds a reproducible search; it does not screen or code studies.
Systematic Search Strategy (psychbull-literature-search-strategy)
A Psychological Bulletin synthesis stands or falls on its search: it must be systematic,
exhaustive, and reproducible, and all systematic reviews must conform to PRISMA. The goal is
that an independent team could re-run your search and recover the same pool. This skill designs and
documents the search; eligibility decisions and coding live in psychbull-inclusion-and-coding.
When to trigger
- Designing the search before screening begins
- A reviewer asks whether the search was exhaustive or reproducible
- Building the PRISMA flow counts (identified → screened → eligible → included)
- Updating the search before resubmission
What an exhaustive search covers
- Multiple databases, not one. At minimum APA PsycINFO, plus MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and discipline-specific sources (ERIC, EMBASE) as relevant.
- Controlled vocabulary + free text. Combine thesaurus terms (APA Thesaurus / MeSH) with free-text synonyms; use Boolean logic and field tags deliberately.
- Grey literature & publication-bias mitigation. Dissertations (ProQuest), preprints (PsyArXiv), conference programs, registries, and author contact for unpublished/in-press data — to limit the file-drawer problem before the bias analysis ever runs.
- Backward & forward citation chasing. Reference lists of included studies and prior reviews; forward citations (cited-by) of key papers.
- Supplementary tools. Google Scholar as a supplement (not a primary database, given non-reproducible ranking).
Documenting for PRISMA / PRISMA-S
- Record, per source: the exact search string, the database/platform and date searched, and the number of hits. This is the PRISMA-S standard.
- Track the flow: records identified → duplicates removed → titles/abstracts screened → full texts assessed → studies included, with counts and exclusion reasons at each stage.
- Save the raw exports; deduplicate in a reference manager (Zotero/EndNote) or screening tool (Covidence/Rayyan) and log the dedup count.
Anti-patterns
- Searching only one database, or only published, peer-reviewed work (biases the pool)
- Reporting "we searched the literature" with no strings, dates, or counts
- A search that cannot be reproduced because the strings were never recorded
- Letting search scope drift silently from the registered protocol without noting the change
- Skipping grey literature, then being surprised by publication-bias findings
What search referees verify at the APA flagship
A Psychological Bulletin synthesis lives or dies on whether an independent team could rebuild its study pool. Reviewers at the APA's flagship review journal apply an explicit search bar:
| Search expectation | Pass | Desk-reject / major-revision trigger |
|---|---|---|
| Database breadth | PsycINFO + several others + discipline sources | A single database, usually PsycINFO alone |
| Strings recorded | Per-source string, platform, and date logged | "We searched the literature" with no strings |
| Grey literature | Dissertations, preprints, author contact | Published peer-reviewed work only |
| Citation chasing | Backward and forward, documented | None; pool is whatever the keywords returned |
| PRISMA flow | Counts and exclusion reasons reconcile | Numbers that don't add up to the included k |
Worked vignette — documenting the search
Illustrative counts only. The self-affirmation synthesis (final k = 42) builds its PRISMA flow this way under this skill's rules:
- Databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC, each searched on a stated date with its exact thesaurus-plus-free-text string recorded per PRISMA-S.
- Grey literature: ProQuest dissertations and PsyArXiv preprints searched; authors of 11 in-progress trials contacted, yielding 3 unpublished datasets — narrowing the file drawer before bias diagnostics.
- Citation chasing: backward (reference lists of included studies and two prior reviews) and forward (cited-by of the 5 anchor papers) added 7 records the keyword search missed.
- PRISMA flow: 2,310 identified → 1,640 after dedup → 1,640 screened → 188 full-text → 42 included, with exclusion reasons tallied so the final box equals the analyzed k.
Referee pushback → venue-specific fix
- "The search isn't exhaustive." → Add the missing databases and grey-literature sources; document author contact for unpublished data.
- "There are PRISMA gaps." → Supply per-source strings, dates, and hit counts, and make the flow diagram reconcile end to end.
- "This search can't be reproduced." → Record and deposit the exact strings so an independent team recovers the same pool; treat Google Scholar as a supplement, not a primary source.
Output format
【Databases】list (PsycINFO + …) with date searched
【Strings】per-database string recorded? [Y/N]
【Grey literature】dissertations / preprints / author contact? [Y/N]
【Citation chasing】backward + forward done? [Y/N]
【PRISMA counts】identified / dedup / screened / full-text / included
【Reproducible】independent team could re-run? [Y/N]
【Next】psychbull-inclusion-and-coding
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— databases, screening managers (Covidence/Rayyan), PRISMA-S../../resources/official-source-map.md— PRISMA requirement for systematic reviews