Literature DB >> 19626144

Evaluation of PubMed filters used for evidence-based searching: validation using relative recall.

Arjen Hoogendam1, Pieter F de Vries Robbé, Anton F H Stalenhoef, A John P M Overbeke.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The research sought to determine the value of PubMed filters and combinations of filters in literature selected for systematic reviews on therapy-related clinical questions.
METHODS: References to 35,281 included and 48,514 excluded articles were extracted from 2,629 reviews published prior to January 2008 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and sent to PubMed with and without filters. Sensitivity, specificity, and precision were calculated from the percentages of unfiltered and filtered references retrieved for each review and averaged over all reviews.
RESULTS: Sensitivity of the Sensitive Clinical Queries filter was reasonable (92.7%, 92.1-93.3); specificity (16.1%, 15.1-17.1) and precision were low (49.5%, 48.5-50.5). The Specific Clinical Queries and the Single Term Medline Specific filters performed comparably (sensitivity, 78.2%, 77.2-79.2 vs. 78.0%; 77.0-79.0; specificity, 52.0%, 50.8-53.2 vs. 52.3%, 51.1-53.5; precision, 60.4%, 59.4-61.4 vs. 60.6%, 59.6-61.6). Combining the Abridged Index Medicus (AIM) and Single Term Medline Specific (65.2%, 63.8-66.6), Two Terms Medline Optimized (64.2%, 62.8-65.6), or Specific Clinical Queries filters (65.0%, 63.6-66.4) yielded the highest precision.
CONCLUSIONS: Sensitive and Specific Clinical Queries filters used to answer questions about therapy will result in a list of clinical trials but cannot be expected to identify only methodologically sound trials. The Specific Clinical Queries filters are not suitable for questions regarding therapy that cannot be answered with randomized controlled trials. Combining AIM with specific PubMed filters yields the highest precision in the Cochrane dataset.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19626144      PMCID: PMC2706446          DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc        ISSN: 1536-5050


  23 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of methodological search filters--a review.

Authors:  Michelle Jenkins
Journal:  Health Info Libr J       Date:  2004-09

2.  Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in MEDLINE.

Authors:  Sharon S-L Wong; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2004

3.  Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey.

Authors:  Victor M Montori; Nancy L Wilczynski; Douglas Morgan; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-12-24

4.  Optimal search strategies for detecting health services research studies in MEDLINE.

Authors:  Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes; John N Lavis; Ravi Ramkissoonsingh; Alexandra E Arnold-Oatley
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-11-09       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstract.

Authors:  J A Doust; E Pietrzak; S Sanders; P P Glasziou
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Variation of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values with disease prevalence.

Authors:  H Brenner; O Gefeller
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 7.  How to read a paper. The Medline database.

Authors:  T Greenhalgh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-07-19

8.  Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care.

Authors:  J W Ely; J A Osheroff; M H Ebell; G R Bergus; B T Levy; M L Chambliss; E R Evans
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-08-07

9.  Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information.

Authors:  A C Justice; K E Covinsky; J A Berlin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-03-16       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound prognostic studies in MEDLINE: an analytic survey.

Authors:  Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2004-06-09       Impact factor: 8.775

View more
  15 in total

1.  Risk factors for bladder cancer: challenges of conducting a literature search using PubMed.

Authors:  Ashish Joshi; Elicia Preslan
Journal:  Perspect Health Inf Manag       Date:  2011-04-01

2.  Retrieval of diagnostic and treatment studies for clinical use through PubMed and PubMed's Clinical Queries filters.

Authors:  Cynthia Lokker; R Brian Haynes; Nancy L Wilczynski; K Ann McKibbon; Stephen D Walter
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Use of Expansion Cohorts in Phase I Trials and Probability of Success in Phase II for 381 Anticancer Drugs.

Authors:  Diogo D G Bugano; Kenneth Hess; Denis L F Jardim; Alona Zer; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Lillian L Siu; Albiruni R A Razak; David S Hong
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 4.  Sensitivity and predictive value of 15 PubMed search strategies to answer clinical questions rated against full systematic reviews.

Authors:  Thomas Agoritsas; Arnaud Merglen; Delphine S Courvoisier; Christophe Combescure; Nicolas Garin; Arnaud Perrier; Thomas V Perneger
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Identifying nurse staffing research in Medline: development and testing of empirically derived search strategies with the PubMed interface.

Authors:  Michael Simon; Elke Hausner; Susan F Klaus; Nancy E Dunton
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-08-23       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Development of a heart failure filter for Medline: an objective approach using evidence-based clinical practice guidelines as an alternative to hand searching.

Authors:  Raechel A Damarell; Jennifer Tieman; Ruth M Sladek; Patricia M Davidson
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry.

Authors:  Rohit Borah; Andrew W Brown; Patrice L Capers; Kathryn A Kaiser
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries.

Authors:  Paul Fontelo; Fang Liu
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2018-09-27

9.  Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients' views and preferences.

Authors:  Anna Selva; Ivan Solà; Yuan Zhang; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; R Brian Haynes; Laura Martínez García; Tamara Navarro; Holger Schünemann; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Locating sex- and gender-specific data in health promotion research: evaluating the sensitivity and precision of published filters.

Authors:  Diane L Lorenzetti; Yongtao Lin
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2017-07-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.