Healthc Inform Res.  2025 Jan;31(1):48-56. 10.4258/hir.2025.31.1.48.

Weightage Identified Network of Keywords Technique: A Structured Approach in Identifying Keywords for Systematic Reviews

• Sivakumar S
• Sivakumar G

• KMID: 2564351
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2025.31.1.48

Abstract

Objectives
The objective of this study was to develop the weightage identified network of keywords (WINK) technique for selecting and utilizing keywords to perform systematic reviews more efficiently. This technique aims to improve the thoroughness and precision of evidence synthesis by employing a more rigorous approach to keyword selection.
Methods
The WINK methodology involves generating network visualization charts to analyze the interconnections among keywords within a specific domain. This process integrates both computational analysis and subject expert insights to enhance the accuracy and relevance of the findings. In the example considered, the networking strength between the contexts of environmental pollutants with endocrine function as Q1 and systemic health with oral health-related terms as Q2 was examined, and keywords with limited networking strength were excluded. Utilizing the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms identified from the WINK technique, a search string was built and compared to an initial search with fewer keywords.
Results
The application of the WINK technique in building the search string yielded 69.81% and 26.23% more articles for Q1 and Q2, respectively, compared to conventional approaches. This significant increase demonstrates the technique's effectiveness in identifying relevant studies and ensuring comprehensive evidence synthesis.
Conclusions
By prioritizing keywords with higher weightage and utilizing network visualization charts, the WINK technique ensures comprehensive evidence synthesis and enhances accuracy in systematic reviews. Its effectiveness in identifying relevant studies marks a significant advancement in systematic review methodology, offering a more robust and efficient approach to keyword selection.

Keyword

Medical Subject Headings, Bibliometrics, Search Engine, Data Mining, Classification

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Step-by-step approach to the WINK strategy for Q1 in the VOSviewer platform: (A) create a map based on bibliographic data, (B) read data from bibliographic database files, (C) select the tab “PubMed” to upload the PubMed format files downloaded through conventional search, (D) select co-occurrence and fractional counting, (E) set the minimum number of keyword occurrences (fewer occurrences yield more keywords and vice versa), (F) determine the number of keywords, and (G) keyword selection by subject experts based on the weightage and relevancy to the study objectives.

• 

  Figure 2 Comprehensive weighted network visualization of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for Q1.

• 

  Figure 3 Comprehensive weighted network visualization of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for Q2.

Reference

References

1. Lohr KN, Eleazer K, Mauskopf J. Health policy issues and applications for evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines. Health Policy. 1998; 46(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-8510(98)00044-x.

2. Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019; 70:747–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803.

3. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005; 93(1):74–80.

4. Gusenbauer M, Haddaway NR. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Synth Methods. 2020; 11(2):181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378.

5. Gasper W, Chundi P, Ghersi D. MeSH indexing using the biomedical citation network. In : Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Health Informatics; 2020 Sep 21–24; Virtual Event, USA. p. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3388440.3412466.

6. Vasudevan S. Searching of literature through Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): an update. Int J Med Sci Nurs Res. 2023; 3(3):13–5. https://doi.org/10.55349/ijmsnr.2023331315.

7. Firoozeh N, Nazarenko A, Alizon F, Daille B. Keyword extraction: issues and methods. Nat Lang Eng. 2020; 26(3):259–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324919000457.

8. Jin Q, Dhingra B, Cohen W, Lu X. Attentionmesh: simple, effective and interpretable automatic mesh indexer. In : Proceedings of the 6th BioASQ Workshop: A Challenge on Large-Scale Biomedical Semantic Indexing and Question Answering; 2018 Nov 1; Brussels, Belgium. p. 47–56. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5306.

9. Xun G, Jha K, Yuan Y, Wang Y, Zhang A. MeSHProbeNet: a self-attentive probe net for MeSH indexing. Bioinformatics. 2019; 35(19):3794–802. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz142.

10. Barroso J, Gollop CJ, Sandelowski M, Meynell J, Pearce PF, Collins LJ. The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. West J Nurs Res. 2003; 25(2):153–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945902250034.

11. Haddaway NR, Westgate MJ. Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Conserv Biol. 2019; 33(2):434–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13231.

12. Russell-Rose T, Chamberlain J. Expert search strategies: the information retrieval practices of healthcare information professionals. JMIR Med Inform. 2017; 5(4):e33. https://doi.org/10.2196/medinform.7680.

13. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(9):944–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012.

14. Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, Cogo E, Moher D. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(8):748–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.009.

15. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Wieland LS, Coles B, Weightman AL. Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future? Syst Rev. 2013; 2:78. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-78.

16. Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Syst Rev. 2016; 5:74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x.

17. VOSviewer: visualizing scientific landscapes [Internet]. Leiden, Netherlands: Leiden University;2024. [cited at 2024 Dec 11] Available from: https://www.vosviewer.com.

18. National Library of Medicine. MeSH Browser [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine;2024. [cited at 2024 Dec 16]. Available from: https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/MeSHonDemand.

19. Tran HK, Borstler J, Ali NB, Unterkalmsteiner M. How good are my search strings? Reflections on using an existing review as a quasi-gold standard. e-Inform Softw Eng J. 2022; 16(1):220103. https://doi.org/10.37190/e-Inf220103.

20. Hembrooke HA, Granka LA, Gay GK, Liddy ED. The effects of expertise and feedback on search term selection and subsequent learning. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2005; 56(8):861–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20180.

21. Shaw RL, Booth A, Sutton AJ, Miller T, Smith JA, Young B, et al. Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004; 4:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-5.

22. Grames EM, Stillman AN, Tingley MW, Elphick CS. An automated approach to identifying search terms for systematic reviews using keyword co-occurrence networks. Methods Ecol Evol. 2019; 10(10):1645–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13268.

23. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst Rev. 2016; 5:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7.

24. Radhakrishnan S, Erbis S, Isaacs JA, Kamarthi S. Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature. PLoS One. 2017; 12(3):e0172778. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172778.