‘Grey literature’ in systematic reviews and evidence syntheses on Environmental Health & Toxicology topics: a survey protocol

Background Systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses use rigorous methods to identify and synthesise all of the relevant evidence to answer a question. A robust search strategy is crucial to conducting a high quality evidence synthesis, as an inadequate search may miss relevant evidence and produce biased findings. Methodological recommendations endorse searching for ‘grey literature’, i.e., reports published outside of traditional commercial publishing. However, there is currently a lack of clarity about what is considered to be the relevant types of grey literature and how to deal with it.Objectives This survey will aim to answer three questions: (1) How do those conducting evidence syntheses on environmental health and toxicology (EHT) topics understand ‘grey literature’; (2) Where do they search for grey literature?; (3) How do they deal with included grey literature evidence?Methods Participants will be individuals who conduct systematic reviews and evidence syntheses in EHT, without restrictions on: previous experience in conducting evidence synthesis, age, gender or geographic location. Survey will be disseminated via relevant professional organisations, systematic review and evidence synthesis organisations, and social media. It will consist of a mix of demographic and content questions. Descriptive statistics will be reported as frequencies and percentages; free-text responses will be analysed thematically.Ethics The survey was exempted from a requirement to undergo ethics review. The first page of the survey will provide the respondents with information about the project and ethics approval; respondents will provide consent by clicking on a button to advance to the survey.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Evidence-Based Toxicology
Published
2025-09-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/2833373x.2025.2548563
Primary Topic
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

‘Grey literature’ in systematic reviews and evidence syntheses on Environmental Health & Toxicology topics: a survey protocol

Kristina A. Thayer, Malgorzata Lagisz, Katya Tsaioun, Robert A. Wright et al.
Evidence-Based Toxicology
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
article

‘Grey literature’ in systematic reviews and evidence syntheses on Environmental Health & Toxicology topics: a survey protocol

Kristina A. Thayer, Malgorzata Lagisz, Katya Tsaioun, Robert A. Wright, Sebastian Hoffmann, Anna Mae Scott, Megan Riccardi, Kimberly Zaccaria, John Barbrook, Mladen Pavlović
article en

Abstract

Background Systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses use rigorous methods to identify and synthesise all of the relevant evidence to answer a question. A robust search strategy is crucial to conducting a high quality evidence synthesis, as an inadequate search may miss relevant evidence and produce biased findings. Methodological recommendations endorse searching for ‘grey literature’, i.e., reports published outside of traditional commercial publishing. However, there is currently a lack of clarity about what is considered to be the relevant types of grey literature and how to deal with it.Objectives This survey will aim to answer three questions: (1) How do those conducting evidence syntheses on environmental health and toxicology (EHT) topics understand ‘grey literature’; (2) Where do they search for grey literature?; (3) How do they deal with included grey literature evidence?Methods Participants will be individuals who conduct systematic reviews and evidence syntheses in EHT, without restrictions on: previous experience in conducting evidence synthesis, age, gender or geographic location. Survey will be disseminated via relevant professional organisations, systematic review and evidence synthesis organisations, and social media. It will consist of a mix of demographic and content questions. Descriptive statistics will be reported as frequencies and percentages; free-text responses will be analysed thematically.Ethics The survey was exempted from a requirement to undergo ethics review. The first page of the survey will provide the respondents with information about the project and ethics approval; respondents will provide consent by clicking on a button to advance to the survey.

Evidence-Based ToxicologyVol. 3(1)
University of Iowa (US), Johns Hopkins University (US), University of Alberta (CA), UNSW Sydney (AU), University of Warwick (GB), University of Oxford (GB), National Center for Environmental Assessment (EPA) (US), BH Consulting (Ireland) (IE), Environmental Earth Sciences (AU), SRC (US), Lancaster University (GB)
Australian Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 75%
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.