compare_terms

Compares the effectiveness of terms across multiple search strategies
to identify which terms perform best in different contexts.

Provides comprehensive analytics, reporting, and testing capabilities
for systematic review search strategies. The package focuses on validating search
performance, generating standardized 'PRISMA'-compliant reports, and ensuring
reproducibility in evidence synthesis. Features include precision-recall analysis,
cross-database performance comparison, benchmark validation against gold standards,
sensitivity analysis, temporal coverage assessment, automated report generation,
and statistical comparison of search strategies. Supports multiple export formats
including 'CSV', 'Excel', 'RIS', 'BibTeX', and 'EndNote'. Includes tools for duplicate
detection, search strategy optimization, cross-validation frameworks, meta-analysis
of benchmark results, power analysis for study design, and reproducibility package
creation. Optionally connects to 'PubMed' for direct database searching and real-time
strategy comparison using the 'E-utilities' 'API'. Enhanced with bootstrap comparison
methods, 'McNemar' test for strategy evaluation, and comprehensive visualization tools
for performance assessment. Methods based on Manning et al. (2008)
for information retrieval metrics, Moher et al. (2009)
for 'PRISMA' guidelines, and Sampson et al. (2006) for
systematic review search methodology.

Chao Liu Liu

searchAnalyzeR

Advanced Analytics and Testing Framework for Systematic Review
Search Strategies

compare_terms function

<dl><dt>term_list</dt>
<dd>Named list of term_analysis objects from different strategies</dd>
<dt>top_n</dt>
<dd>Number of top terms to compare (default: 5)</dd></dl>

Arguments

Compare Terms Across Strategies — compare_terms

<dl>

<dt>term_list</dt>
<dd>Named list of term_analysis objects from different strategies</dd>


<dt>top_n</dt>
<dd>Number of top terms to compare (default: 5)</dd>

</dl>

compare_terms: Compare Terms Across Strategies

Description

Usage

Value

Arguments

Details