Evidence Synthesis Methods Interest Group

Hi everyone, 

I'm a librarian that mostly uses EBSCO databases (PsycInfo, Business Source Complete) for systematic reviews. They recently updated their entire platform and I've noticed a lot of changes that negatively impact doing research for systematic reviews: 

Permalinks to Search Results: It seems we can no longer generate permalinks to full search result sets. If this feature still exists, please let me know. Currently, we can only email or download article metadata (with a max of 50 articles at a time), which isn't ideal for exporting 100+ results. This feature was especially helpful when helping remote students or faculty, as I could do the search and then share the results with them in real time for their input. 

Save/Add to Project Issues: Since permalinks aren't available, I've tried saving searches and using the "Add to Project" feature. However, when I revisit saved searches, the search parameters and results don't replicate correctly. For example, a search that originally retrieved 189 results reloads with over 400,000 irrelevant results (see screenshots below). I also often receive an error page when trying to replicate results from the project page (even when cookies and cache are cleared), or the system will say that I have exceeded the maximum amount of time set by my organization, even if I have only been on the database for 10 minutes. 

RIS Format Export Removed: Students need to export results in RIS format to import them directly into Covidence, a systematic review software. While Covidence does accept XML, it only supports XML files generated by EndNote. Without the RIS option, students are now required to use a reference manager like EndNote as an extra step-whereas previously, they could export directly from EBSCO to Covidence.

Deleting Search History: We can no longer mass delete entries in the search history. When working with multiple students or restarting a search, deleting 20+ entries one by one is time-consuming. Additionally, exporting the articles is now more time consuming with the new layout (it is now continuous scroll, which before it used to be separate pages. This makes it so you have to scroll all the way back up to the top of page 1 to export, even if you're on page 3). 

Has anyone else had similar problems? Curious to know what others think about this update in the context of systematic reviews. 

------------------------------
Gabrielle Riter
Librarian
Pepperdine University
------------------------------

Apologies this is going to be long.

My experience with the new EBSCO interface has been pretty negative. It is broadly less functional than it used to be and many core features are hidden in places no one would look.  The documentation is inadequate at best.

For instance, you can actually export to RIS from the new EBSCO, you just have to log into a MyEBSCO account and then use the export function hidden under the down arrow next to the check box that selects all results on the page (screenshots below). This goes to a completely different export interface than the one provided by the download button. The two interfaces have overlapping but distinct format selection. The download offers PDF, MSWord, CSV, BIBTEX, MARC21, and endnote XML. The export offers RIS, CSV, BIBTEX and endnote XML. 

Why? 

No idea.

Is it in the documentation?

Nope. The documentation only covers the article level cite and export tool. 

I find that to be typical of the new EBSCO. Less capable, less well documented and totally unpredictable. At one point it was ignoring phrase searching. Now it isn't. Will it interpret quotations correctly tomorrow? No idea. They didn't document either the removal of phrase searching or the restoration of it. Why did they decide that N5 was the appropriate operator to join terms not connected by a Boolean operator? No idea.

We've complained a lot and our acquisitions people say that the EBSCO rep is now regularly mentioning a systematic review overlay that would allow for systematic review search tools, but whether that's actually a thing I don't know. 

For the review my team has in process we are going to not update our searches and are including this language.  "Our original search was designed for the pre-2025 version of EBSCO's search services. As of _______ it does not currently function as originally intended and exact replication of the searches conducted on EBSCO services was not possible at the time of finalization." For new reviews we are exhausting other options first and then disclaiming EBSCO if we have to use it. 

Screenshots: 

------------------------------
Joseph Rowe-Morris
Multidisciplinary Librarian
University of Texas at Arlington

Original Message:
Sent: May 08, 2025 03:30 PM
From: Gabrielle Riter
Subject: Thoughts on EBSCO's new update?

Hi everyone, 

I'm a librarian that mostly uses EBSCO databases (PsycInfo, Business Source Complete) for systematic reviews. They recently updated their entire platform and I've noticed a lot of changes that negatively impact doing research for systematic reviews: 

Permalinks to Search Results: It seems we can no longer generate permalinks to full search result sets. If this feature still exists, please let me know. Currently, we can only email or download article metadata (with a max of 50 articles at a time), which isn't ideal for exporting 100+ results. This feature was especially helpful when helping remote students or faculty, as I could do the search and then share the results with them in real time for their input. 

Save/Add to Project Issues: Since permalinks aren't available, I've tried saving searches and using the "Add to Project" feature. However, when I revisit saved searches, the search parameters and results don't replicate correctly. For example, a search that originally retrieved 189 results reloads with over 400,000 irrelevant results (see screenshots below). I also often receive an error page when trying to replicate results from the project page (even when cookies and cache are cleared), or the system will say that I have exceeded the maximum amount of time set by my organization, even if I have only been on the database for 10 minutes. 

RIS Format Export Removed: Students need to export results in RIS format to import them directly into Covidence, a systematic review software. While Covidence does accept XML, it only supports XML files generated by EndNote. Without the RIS option, students are now required to use a reference manager like EndNote as an extra step-whereas previously, they could export directly from EBSCO to Covidence.

Deleting Search History: We can no longer mass delete entries in the search history. When working with multiple students or restarting a search, deleting 20+ entries one by one is time-consuming. Additionally, exporting the articles is now more time consuming with the new layout (it is now continuous scroll, which before it used to be separate pages. This makes it so you have to scroll all the way back up to the top of page 1 to export, even if you're on page 3). 

Has anyone else had similar problems? Curious to know what others think about this update in the context of systematic reviews. 

------------------------------
Gabrielle Riter
Librarian
Pepperdine University
------------------------------

Thank you for this comment and letting me know where the RIS export option is! I agree, it makes NO sense to have 2 different options for downloading/exporting...I also have been noticing that it constantly ignores phrase searching when doing a systematic search. I hope to meet with a rep soon. 

Apologies this is going to be long.

My experience with the new EBSCO interface has been pretty negative. It is broadly less functional than it used to be and many core features are hidden in places no one would look.  The documentation is inadequate at best.

For instance, you can actually export to RIS from the new EBSCO, you just have to log into a MyEBSCO account and then use the export function hidden under the down arrow next to the check box that selects all results on the page (screenshots below). This goes to a completely different export interface than the one provided by the download button. The two interfaces have overlapping but distinct format selection. The download offers PDF, MSWord, CSV, BIBTEX, MARC21, and endnote XML. The export offers RIS, CSV, BIBTEX and endnote XML. 

Why? 

No idea.

Is it in the documentation?

Nope. The documentation only covers the article level cite and export tool. 

I find that to be typical of the new EBSCO. Less capable, less well documented and totally unpredictable. At one point it was ignoring phrase searching. Now it isn't. Will it interpret quotations correctly tomorrow? No idea. They didn't document either the removal of phrase searching or the restoration of it. Why did they decide that N5 was the appropriate operator to join terms not connected by a Boolean operator? No idea.

We've complained a lot and our acquisitions people say that the EBSCO rep is now regularly mentioning a systematic review overlay that would allow for systematic review search tools, but whether that's actually a thing I don't know. 

For the review my team has in process we are going to not update our searches and are including this language.  "Our original search was designed for the pre-2025 version of EBSCO's search services. As of _______ it does not currently function as originally intended and exact replication of the searches conducted on EBSCO services was not possible at the time of finalization." For new reviews we are exhausting other options first and then disclaiming EBSCO if we have to use it. 

Screenshots: 

------------------------------
Joseph Rowe-Morris
Multidisciplinary Librarian
University of Texas at Arlington

Original Message:
Sent: May 08, 2025 03:30 PM
From: Gabrielle Riter
Subject: Thoughts on EBSCO's new update?

Hi everyone, 

I'm a librarian that mostly uses EBSCO databases (PsycInfo, Business Source Complete) for systematic reviews. They recently updated their entire platform and I've noticed a lot of changes that negatively impact doing research for systematic reviews: 

Permalinks to Search Results: It seems we can no longer generate permalinks to full search result sets. If this feature still exists, please let me know. Currently, we can only email or download article metadata (with a max of 50 articles at a time), which isn't ideal for exporting 100+ results. This feature was especially helpful when helping remote students or faculty, as I could do the search and then share the results with them in real time for their input. 

Save/Add to Project Issues: Since permalinks aren't available, I've tried saving searches and using the "Add to Project" feature. However, when I revisit saved searches, the search parameters and results don't replicate correctly. For example, a search that originally retrieved 189 results reloads with over 400,000 irrelevant results (see screenshots below). I also often receive an error page when trying to replicate results from the project page (even when cookies and cache are cleared), or the system will say that I have exceeded the maximum amount of time set by my organization, even if I have only been on the database for 10 minutes. 

RIS Format Export Removed: Students need to export results in RIS format to import them directly into Covidence, a systematic review software. While Covidence does accept XML, it only supports XML files generated by EndNote. Without the RIS option, students are now required to use a reference manager like EndNote as an extra step-whereas previously, they could export directly from EBSCO to Covidence.

Deleting Search History: We can no longer mass delete entries in the search history. When working with multiple students or restarting a search, deleting 20+ entries one by one is time-consuming. Additionally, exporting the articles is now more time consuming with the new layout (it is now continuous scroll, which before it used to be separate pages. This makes it so you have to scroll all the way back up to the top of page 1 to export, even if you're on page 3). 

Has anyone else had similar problems? Curious to know what others think about this update in the context of systematic reviews. 

------------------------------
Gabrielle Riter
Librarian
Pepperdine University
------------------------------

Hi everyone, 

I'm a librarian that mostly uses EBSCO databases (PsycInfo, Business Source Complete) for systematic reviews. They recently updated their entire platform and I've noticed a lot of changes that negatively impact doing research for systematic reviews: 

Permalinks to Search Results: It seems we can no longer generate permalinks to full search result sets. If this feature still exists, please let me know. Currently, we can only email or download article metadata (with a max of 50 articles at a time), which isn't ideal for exporting 100+ results. This feature was especially helpful when helping remote students or faculty, as I could do the search and then share the results with them in real time for their input. 

Save/Add to Project Issues: Since permalinks aren't available, I've tried saving searches and using the "Add to Project" feature. However, when I revisit saved searches, the search parameters and results don't replicate correctly. For example, a search that originally retrieved 189 results reloads with over 400,000 irrelevant results (see screenshots below). I also often receive an error page when trying to replicate results from the project page (even when cookies and cache are cleared), or the system will say that I have exceeded the maximum amount of time set by my organization, even if I have only been on the database for 10 minutes. 

RIS Format Export Removed: Students need to export results in RIS format to import them directly into Covidence, a systematic review software. While Covidence does accept XML, it only supports XML files generated by EndNote. Without the RIS option, students are now required to use a reference manager like EndNote as an extra step-whereas previously, they could export directly from EBSCO to Covidence.

Deleting Search History: We can no longer mass delete entries in the search history. When working with multiple students or restarting a search, deleting 20+ entries one by one is time-consuming. Additionally, exporting the articles is now more time consuming with the new layout (it is now continuous scroll, which before it used to be separate pages. This makes it so you have to scroll all the way back up to the top of page 1 to export, even if you're on page 3). 

Has anyone else had similar problems? Curious to know what others think about this update in the context of systematic reviews. 

------------------------------
Gabrielle Riter
Librarian
Pepperdine University
------------------------------

Hi everyone, 

I'm a librarian that mostly uses EBSCO databases (PsycInfo, Business Source Complete) for systematic reviews. They recently updated their entire platform and I've noticed a lot of changes that negatively impact doing research for systematic reviews: 

Permalinks to Search Results: It seems we can no longer generate permalinks to full search result sets. If this feature still exists, please let me know. Currently, we can only email or download article metadata (with a max of 50 articles at a time), which isn't ideal for exporting 100+ results. This feature was especially helpful when helping remote students or faculty, as I could do the search and then share the results with them in real time for their input. 

Save/Add to Project Issues: Since permalinks aren't available, I've tried saving searches and using the "Add to Project" feature. However, when I revisit saved searches, the search parameters and results don't replicate correctly. For example, a search that originally retrieved 189 results reloads with over 400,000 irrelevant results (see screenshots below). I also often receive an error page when trying to replicate results from the project page (even when cookies and cache are cleared), or the system will say that I have exceeded the maximum amount of time set by my organization, even if I have only been on the database for 10 minutes. 

RIS Format Export Removed: Students need to export results in RIS format to import them directly into Covidence, a systematic review software. While Covidence does accept XML, it only supports XML files generated by EndNote. Without the RIS option, students are now required to use a reference manager like EndNote as an extra step-whereas previously, they could export directly from EBSCO to Covidence.

Deleting Search History: We can no longer mass delete entries in the search history. When working with multiple students or restarting a search, deleting 20+ entries one by one is time-consuming. Additionally, exporting the articles is now more time consuming with the new layout (it is now continuous scroll, which before it used to be separate pages. This makes it so you have to scroll all the way back up to the top of page 1 to export, even if you're on page 3). 

Has anyone else had similar problems? Curious to know what others think about this update in the context of systematic reviews.