Suzanne K Linder1, Geetanjali R Kamath2, Gregory F Pratt3, Smita S Saraykar2, Robert J Volk4. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Sealy Center on Aging, The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX 77555-0177, USA. 2. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 3. Research Medical Library, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 4. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Sealy Center on Aging, The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX 77555-0177, USA. Electronic address: bvolk@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of two search methods in identifying studies that used the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), a health care decision-making instrument commonly used in clinical settings. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the literature using two methods: (1) keyword searching using variations of "Control Preferences Scale" and (2) cited reference searching using two seminal CPS publications. We searched three bibliographic databases [PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS)] and one full-text database (Google Scholar). We report precision and sensitivity as measures of effectiveness. RESULTS: Keyword searches in bibliographic databases yielded high average precision (90%) but low average sensitivity (16%). PubMed was the most precise, followed closely by Scopus and WOS. The Google Scholar keyword search had low precision (54%) but provided the highest sensitivity (70%). Cited reference searches in all databases yielded moderate sensitivity (45-54%), but precision ranged from 35% to 75% with Scopus being the most precise. CONCLUSION: Cited reference searches were more sensitive than keyword searches, making it a more comprehensive strategy to identify all studies that use a particular instrument. Keyword searches provide a quick way of finding some but not all relevant articles. Goals, time, and resources should dictate the combination of which methods and databases are used.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of two search methods in identifying studies that used the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), a health care decision-making instrument commonly used in clinical settings. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the literature using two methods: (1) keyword searching using variations of "Control Preferences Scale" and (2) cited reference searching using two seminal CPS publications. We searched three bibliographic databases [PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS)] and one full-text database (Google Scholar). We report precision and sensitivity as measures of effectiveness. RESULTS: Keyword searches in bibliographic databases yielded high average precision (90%) but low average sensitivity (16%). PubMed was the most precise, followed closely by Scopus and WOS. The Google Scholar keyword search had low precision (54%) but provided the highest sensitivity (70%). Cited reference searches in all databases yielded moderate sensitivity (45-54%), but precision ranged from 35% to 75% with Scopus being the most precise. CONCLUSION: Cited reference searches were more sensitive than keyword searches, making it a more comprehensive strategy to identify all studies that use a particular instrument. Keyword searches provide a quick way of finding some but not all relevant articles. Goals, time, and resources should dictate the combination of which methods and databases are used.
Authors: Adina R Lemeshow; Robin E Blum; Jesse A Berlin; Michael A Stoto; Graham A Colditz Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Rachel L Shaw; Andrew Booth; Alex J Sutton; Tina Miller; Jonathan A Smith; Bridget Young; David R Jones; Mary Dixon-Woods Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2004-03-16 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Michael V Fedewa; Hayley V MacDonald; Elizabeth D Hathaway; Tyler D Williams; Michael D Schmidt Journal: Sports Med Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Ward C Dobbs; Michael V Fedewa; Hayley V MacDonald; Clifton J Holmes; Zackary S Cicone; Daniel J Plews; Michael R Esco Journal: Sports Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Michael V Fedewa; Elizabeth D Hathaway; Christie L Ward-Ritacco; Tyler D Williams; Ward C Dobbs Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Brian J Buta; Jeremy D Walston; Job G Godino; Minsun Park; Rita R Kalyani; Qian-Li Xue; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Ravi Varadhan Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: Kimberly S Hsiung; Jason B Colditz; Elizabeth A McGuier; Galen E Switzer; Helena M VonVille; Barbara L Folb; David J Kolko Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: A Cecile J W Janssens; Marta Gwinn; J Elaine Brockman; Kimberley Powell; Michael Goodman Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 4.615