Literature DB >> 33067630

Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates.

Amal Alharbi1, Mark Stevenson1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews are important in health care but are expensive to produce and maintain. The authors explore the use of automated transformations of Boolean queries to improve the identification of relevant studies for updates to systematic reviews.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of query transformations, including operator substitution, query expansion, and query reduction, were used to iteratively modify the Boolean query used for the original systematic review. The most effective transformation at each stage is identified using information about the studies included and excluded from the original review. A dataset consisting of 22 systematic reviews was used for evaluation. Updated queries were evaluated using the included and excluded studies from the updated version of the review. Recall and precision were used as evaluation measures.
RESULTS: The updated queries were more effective than the ones used for the original review, in terms of both precision and recall. The overall number of documents retrieved was reduced by more than half, while the number of relevant documents found increased by 10.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: Identification of relevant studies for updates to systematic reviews can be carried out more effectively by using information about the included and excluded studies from the original review to produce improved Boolean queries. These updated queries reduce the overall number of documents retrieved while also increasing the number of relevant documents identified, thereby representing a considerable reduction in effort required by systematic reviewers.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  lexical statistics; query reformulation; screening; systematic reviews; systematic reviews updates

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33067630      PMCID: PMC7750994          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  17 in total

Review 1.  Systematic reviews need systematic searchers.

Authors:  Jessie McGowan; Margaret Sampson
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2005-01

2.  Reducing workload in systematic review preparation using automated citation classification.

Authors:  A M Cohen; W R Hersh; K Peterson; Po-Yin Yen
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  An SVM-based high-quality article classifier for systematic reviews.

Authors:  Seunghee Kim; Jinwook Choi
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 6.317

Review 4.  A Prospective Evaluation of an Automated Classification System to Support Evidence-based Medicine and Systematic Review.

Authors:  Aaron M Cohen; Kyle Ambert; Marian McDonagh
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2010-11-13

Review 5.  Reminder packaging for improving adherence to self-administered long-term medications.

Authors:  Kamal R Mahtani; Carl J Heneghan; Paul P Glasziou; Rafael Perera
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-09-07

6.  Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?

Authors:  Hilda Bastian; Paul Glasziou; Iain Chalmers
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 7.  Recombinant human insulin-like growth factor I (rhIGF-I) for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease.

Authors:  Michel Beauverd; J D Mitchell; John H J Wokke; Gian Domenico Borasio
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-11-14

8.  Studying the potential impact of automated document classification on scheduling a systematic review update.

Authors:  Aaron M Cohen; Kyle Ambert; Marian McDonagh
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews.

Authors:  Byron C Wallace; Thomas A Trikalinos; Joseph Lau; Carla Brodley; Christopher H Schmid
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-01-26       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  The significant cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials.

Authors:  Matthew Michelson; Katja Reuter
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2019-08-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.