This is partially a test. I've changed the site around and am using this to test that things still function properly. I'll also take the opportunity to promote an SR project I was a part of:
Entries in Systematic Reviews (16)
The authors suggest using text mining software to objectively develop searches. I agree with the approach, but don't think it fundamentally differs from what should already be standard practice; that is, using a test set of relevant articles to a) harvest text words and controlled terms and b) objectively validate the search. Both can be accomplished manually, though a program would likely be more efficient and comprehensive (& probably more accurate, reproducible, and systematic now that I think about it). Worth a read.
An interesting conversation via Evidence-Based Health. I've wondered how closely (and effectively) systematic review and clinical guideline searches are scrutinized during peer review. My guess is not very. But given their significant role in such projects, they certainly warrant careful review. Fortunately, as someone mentioned in the exchange, exceptional research has been done in this area:
It's a great paper. The authors offer a number of recommendations that I think provide a nice framework for critically evaluating searches. Definitely worth a read.
Edit: Also take a look at the checklist the authors put together based on their research. Another fine contribution.
Earlier this year, I was invited to provide a lecture on the systematic review search process for a course in the University of Michigan School of Public Health. The course materials, including my lecture, are now available as part of the Open.Michigan initiative, which facilitates the opening up and sharing of locally created educational resources. Check out the site.