共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 62 毫秒
1.
Su Golder PhD Kelly Farrah MLIS Monika Mierzwinski-Urban MLIS Beth Barker BSc Anna Rama 《Health information and libraries journal》2023,40(2):190-200
Background
The most current objectively derived search filters for adverse drug effects are 15 years old and other strategies have not been developed and tested empirically.Objective
To develop and validate search filters to retrieve evidence on adverse drug effects from Ovid medline and Ovid Embase.Methods
We identified systematic reviews of adverse drug effects in Epistemonikos. From these reviews, we collated their included studies which we then randomly divided into three tests and one validation set of records. We constructed a search strategy to maximise relative recall using word frequency analysis with test set one. This search strategy was then refined using test sets two and three and validated on the final set of records.Results
Of 107 systematic reviews which met our inclusion criteria, 1948 unique included studies were available from medline and 1980 from Embase. Generic adverse drug effects searches in medline and Embase achieved 90% and 89% relative recall, respectively. When specific adverse effects terms were added recall was improved.Conclusion
We have derived and validated search filters that retrieve around 90% of records with adverse drug effects data in medline and Embase. The addition of specific adverse effects terms is required to achieve higher recall. 相似文献2.
Maaz A. Khan BA Oliver D. Mowforth BA MB BChir Isla Kuhn MA MSc Mark R. N. Kotter MD MPhil PhD Benjamin M. Davies MRCS BSc 《Health information and libraries journal》2023,40(2):181-189
Background
Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a recently proposed umbrella term for symptomatic cervical spinal cord compression secondary to degeneration of the spine. Currently literature searching for DCM is challenged by the inconsistent uptake of the term ‘DCM’ with many overlapping keywords and numerous synonyms.Objectives
Here, we adapt our previous Ovid medline search filter for the Ovid embase database, to support comprehensive literature searching. Both embase and medline are recommended as a minimum for systematic reviews.Methods
References contained within embase identified in our prior study formed a ‘development gold standard’ reference database (N = 220). The search filter was adapted for embase and checked against the reference database. The filter was then validated against the ‘validation gold standard’.Results
A direct translation was not possible, as medline indexing for DCM and the keywords search field were not available in embase . We also used the ‘focus’ function to improve precision. The resulting search filter has 100% sensitivity in testing.Discussion and Conclusion
We have developed a validated search filter capable of retrieving DCM references in embase with high sensitivity. In the absence of consistent terminology and indexing, this will support more efficient and robust evidence synthesis in the field. 相似文献3.
Background: Search filters can potentially improve the efficiency of searches involving electronic databases such as medline and embase . Although search filters have been developed for identifying records that contain adverse effects data, little is known about the sensitivity of such filters. Objectives: This study measured the sensitivity of using available adverse effects filters to retrieve papers with adverse effects data. Methods: A total of 233 included studies from 26 systematic reviews of adverse effects were used for analysis. Search filters from medline and embase were tested for their sensitivity in retrieving the records included in these reviews. In addition, the sensitivity of each individual search term used in at least one search filter was measured. Results: Subheadings proved the most useful search terms in both medline and embase . No indexing terms in medline achieved over 12% sensitivity. The sensitivity of published search filters varied in medline from 3% to 93% and in embase from 57% to 97%. Whether this level of sensitivity is acceptable will be dependent on the purpose of the search. Conclusions: Although no adverse effects search filter captured all the relevant records, high sensitivity could be achieved. Search filters may therefore be useful in retrieving adverse effects data. 相似文献
4.
Lynda Ayiku Thomas Hudson Ceri Williams Paul Levay Catherine Jacob 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(4):583
Objective:We previously developed draft MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) geographic search filters for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries to assess their feasibility for finding evidence about the countries. Here, we describe the validation of these search filters.Methods:We identified OECD country references from thirty National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines to generate gold standard sets for MEDLINE (n=2,065) and Embase (n=2,023). We validated the filters by calculating their recall against these sets. We then applied the filters to existing search strategies for three OECD-focused NICE guideline reviews (NG103 on flu vaccination, NG140 on abortion care, and NG146 on workplace health) to calculate the filters'' impact on the number needed to read (NNR) of the searches.Results:The filters both achieved 99.95% recall against the gold standard sets. Both filters achieved 100% recall for the three NICE guideline reviews. The MEDLINE filter reduced NNR from 256 to 232 for the NG103 review, from 38 to 27 for the NG140 review, and from 631 to 591 for the NG146 review. The Embase filter reduced NNR from 373 to 341 for the NG103 review, from 101 to 76 for the NG140 review, and from 989 to 925 for the NG146 review.Conclusion:The NICE OECD countries'' search filters are the first validated filters for the countries. They can save time for research topics about OECD countries by finding the majority of evidence about OECD countries while reducing search result volumes in comparison to no filter use. 相似文献
5.
Su Golder 《Health information and libraries journal》2013,30(4):327-331
Pharmaceutical interventions have brought about many benefits to health, improving the population's well‐being and life expectancy. However, these interventions are not without potential harmful side‐effects and yet searching for the evidence on adverse effects is challenging. This article summarises a PhD whose main aim was to develop a better understanding of the implications of using different sources and approaches to identifying relevant data on adverse effects. The author is Su Golder, who has recently completed her PhD at the University of York and who has already published several articles on specific aspects of her research, including this journal. This article is the first in the Dissertations into Practice series to report on a PhD study, and it summarises her research in a way which emphasises the implications for practice. AM 相似文献
6.
Bert Avau Hans Van Remoortel Emmy De Buck 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(4):599
Objective:The aim of this project was to validate search filters for systematic reviews, intervention studies, and observational studies translated from Ovid MEDLINE and Embase syntax and used for searches in PubMed and Embase.com during the development of evidence summaries supporting first aid guidelines. We aimed to achieve a balance among recall, specificity, precision, and number needed to read (NNR).Methods:Reference gold standards were constructed per study type derived from existing evidence summaries. Search filter performance was assessed through retrospective searches and measurement of relative recall, specificity, precision, and NNR when using the translated search filters. Where necessary, search filters were optimized. Adapted filters were validated in separate validation gold standards.Results:Search filters for systematic reviews and observational studies reached recall of ≥85% in both PubMed and Embase. Corresponding specificities for systematic review filters were ≥96% in both databases, with a precision of 9.7% (NNR 10) in PubMed and 5.4% (NNR 19) in Embase. For observational study filters, specificity, precision, and NNR were 68%, 2%, and 51 in PubMed and 47%, 0.8%, and 123 in Embase, respectively. These filters were considered sufficiently effective. Search filters for intervention studies reached a recall of 85% and 83% in PubMed and Embase, respectively. Optimization led to recall of ≥95% with specificity, precision, and NNR of 49%, 1.3%, and 79 in PubMed and 56%, 0.74%, and 136 in Embase, respectively.Conclusions:We report validated filters to search for systematic reviews, observational studies, and intervention studies in guideline projects in PubMed and Embase.com. 相似文献
7.
Objective:There are no existing validated search filters for the group of 37 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. This study describes how information specialists from the United Kingdom''s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed and evaluated novel OECD countries’ geographic search filters for MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) to improve literature search effectiveness for evidence about OECD countries.Methods:We created the draft filters using an alternative approach to standard filter construction. They are composed entirely of geographic subject headings and are designed to retain OECD country evidence by excluding non-OECD country evidence using the NOT Boolean operator. To evaluate the draft filters’ effectiveness, we used MEDLINE and Embase literature searches for three NICE guidelines that retrieved >5,000 search results. A 10% sample of the excluded references was screened to check that OECD country evidence was not inadvertently excluded.Results:The draft MEDLINE filter reduced results for each NICE guideline by 9.5% to 12.9%. In Embase, search results were reduced by 10.7% to 14%. Of the sample references, 7 of 910 (0.8%) were excluded inadvertently. These references were from a guideline about looked-after minors that concerns both OECD and non-OECD countries.Conclusion:The draft filters look promising—they reduced search result volumes while retaining most OECD country evidence from MEDLINE and Embase. However, we advise caution when using them in topics about both non-OECD and OECD countries. We have created final versions of the search filters and will validate them in a future study. 相似文献
8.
Hope Foley PhD Andrea Bugarcic PhD Jon Adams PhD Jon Wardle PhD Matthew Leach PhD Amie Steel PhD 《Health information and libraries journal》2023,40(3):233-261
Background
Traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is highly utilised and draws on traditional knowledge (TK) as evidence, raising a need to explore how TK is currently used.Objectives
Examine criteria used to select, evaluate and apply TK in contemporary health contexts.Methods
Systematic search utilising academic databases (AMED , CINAHL , MEDLINE , EMBASE , SSCI , ProQuest Dissertations Theses Global ), Trip clinical database and Google search engine . Citations and reference lists of included articles were searched. Reported use of TK in contemporary settings was mapped against a modified ‘Exploration-Preparation-Implementation-Sustainment’ (EPIS) implementation framework.Results
From the 54 included articles, EPIS mapping found TK is primarily used in the Exploration phase of implementation (n = 54), with little reporting on Preparation (n = 16), Implementation process (n = 6) or Sustainment (n = 4) of TK implementation. Criteria used in selection, evaluation and application of TK commonly involved validation with other scientific/traditional evidence sources, or assessment of factors influencing knowledge translation.Discussion
One of the difficulties in validation of TK (as a co-opted treatment) against other evidence sources is comparing like with like as TK often takes a holistic approach. This complicates further planning and evaluation of implementation.Conclusion
This review identifies important criteria for evaluating current and potential contemporary use of TK, identifying gaps in research and practice for finding, appraising and applying relevant TK studies for clinical care. 相似文献9.
Pienaar E Grobler L Busgeeth K Eisinga A Siegfried N 《Health information and libraries journal》2011,28(3):210-215
Background: Research on identifying trials using geographic filters is limited. Objectives: To test the sensitivity and precision of a filter to identify African randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched medline and embase for RCTs published in 2004 using a Cochrane filter for RCTs. The search was limited to HIV/AIDS but irrespective of location. Two investigators independently identified African RCTs from the retrieved records forming a reference set. We then repeated the search using an African geographic filter comprising country and regional terms forming the filter set. We compared the sensitivity and precision of the sets. Results: The medline reference set comprised 1799 records with 23 African RCTs; for embase , the reference set comprised 763 records with 37 African RCTs. The medline filter set comprised 180 records with 17 African RCTs; the embase filter set comprised 98 records with 27 African RCTs. Sensitivity of the filter was 74% (medline ) and 73% (embase ). Addition of the filter improved precision from 1.3% to 9.4% (medline ) and from 5% to 28% (embase ). Conclusion: The African filter improved precision with some loss in sensitivity. Incomplete reporting of trial location in electronic bibliographic records restricts efficiency of geographic filters. Prospective trial registration should alleviate this. 相似文献
10.
Kathleen Ann McKibbon Nancy Lou Wilczynski Robert Brian Haynes for the Hedges Team 《Health information and libraries journal》2009,26(3):187-202
Background: People search medline for trials of healthcare interventions for clinical decisions, or to produce systematic reviews, practice guidelines, or technology assessments. Finding all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with little extraneous material is challenging. Objective: To provide comparative data on the operating characteristics of search filters designed to retrieve RCTs from medline . Methods: We identified 38 filters. The testing database comprises handsearching data from 161 clinical journals indexed in medline . Sensitivity, specificity and precision were calculated. Results: The number of terms and operating characteristics varied considerably. Comparing the retrieval against the single term ‘randomized controlled trials.pt.’ (sensitivity for retrieving RCTs, 93.7%), 24 of 38 filters had statistically higher sensitivity; 6 had a sensitivity of at least 99.0%. Four other filters had specificities (non retrieval of non‐RCTs) that were statistically not different or better than the single term (97.6%). Precision was poor: only two filters had precision (proportion of retrieved articles that were RCTs) statistically similar to that of the single term (56.4%)—all others were lower. Filters with more search terms often had lower specificity, especially at high sensitivities. Conclusion: Many RCT filters exist (n = 38). These comparative data can direct the choice of an RCT filter. 相似文献
11.
Background
Systematic reviews risk producing biased conclusions if a comprehensive search to identify eligible studies is not undertaken, but little evidence exists to guide prioritisation of databases to search when resources are limited.Objectives
A systematic review examining interventions for managing frozen shoulder (adhesive capsulitis) was used to investigate the performance of bibliographic databases in identifying the included studies, the smallest combination of databases required to retrieve all included studies, and the performance of the searches themselves.Methods
We calculated the yield of included studies from each of 15 databases, and the recall and precision of each search strategy. We investigated differences between the presence of a record in a database and its retrieval.Results
Thirty of 31 studies were present in at least one database. Yields of individual databases ranged from 0% to 90% (median 23%). Two combinations of databases identified all 30 studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Science Citation Index (SCI); or CENTRAL, MEDLINE and PreMEDLINE.Conclusions
In a systematic review of a range of interventions used to manage frozen shoulder, at least two databases and reference checking were required to retrieve all included studies, but searching for future reviews should not be restricted. 相似文献12.
Julie M. Glanville Steven Duffy Rachael McCool Danielle Varley 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2014,102(3):177-183
Background:
Since 2005, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) member journals have required that clinical trials be registered in publicly available trials registers before they are considered for publication.Objectives:
The research explores whether it is adequate, when searching to inform systematic reviews, to search for relevant clinical trials using only public trials registers and to identify the optimal search approaches in trials registers.Methods:
A search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for research studies that had been included in eight systematic reviews. Four search approaches (highly sensitive, sensitive, precise, and highly precise) were performed using the basic and advanced interfaces in both resources.Results:
On average, 84% of studies were not listed in either resource. The largest number of included studies was retrieved in ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP when a sensitive search approach was used in the basic interface. The use of the advanced interface maintained or improved sensitivity in 16 of 19 strategies for Clinicaltrials.gov and 8 of 18 for ICTRP. No single search approach was sensitive enough to identify all studies included in the 6 reviews.Conclusions:
Trials registers cannot yet be relied upon as the sole means to locate trials for systematic reviews. Trials registers lag behind the major bibliographic databases in terms of their search interfaces.Implications:
For systematic reviews, trials registers and major bibliographic databases should be searched. Trials registers should be searched using sensitive approaches, and both the registers consulted in this study should be searched.Clinical trials registers such as ClinicalTrials.gov and portals to trials registers such as the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) are increasingly used to identify ongoing or completed clinical trials. These resources offer important information on the methods and progress of trials likely to be of interest to a range of users, including researchers, clinicians, and patients. The extent to which these resources can be relied upon as a sole source of trials for inclusion in systematic reviews, including Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs), is the subject of the research study reported here. This study also investigates the most efficient ways that librarians, information professionals, and other searchers can search these resources. Search efficiency was investigated by evaluating the overlap and unique yield of searches in the two resources and by testing four search approaches. The tested search approaches ranged from the very precise (single specific condition search term combined with a single specific intervention search term) to the very sensitive (at least two interventions terms). 相似文献13.
Background: Search filters have been developed in MEDLINE and EMBASE to help overcome the challenges of searching electronic databases for information on adverse effects. However, little evaluation of their effectiveness has been carried out. Objectives: To measure the sensitivity and precision of available adverse effects search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Methods: A case study systematic review of fracture related adverse effects associated with the use of thiazolidinediones was used. Twelve MEDLINE search strategies and three EMBASE search strategies were tested. Results: Nineteen relevant references from MEDLINE and 24 from EMBASE were included in the review. Four search filters in MEDLINE achieved high sensitivity (95 or 100%) with an improved level of precision from searches without any adverse effects filter. High precision in MEDLINE could also be achieved (up to 53%) using search filters that rely on Medical Subject Headings. No search filter in EMBASE achieved high precision (all were under 5%) and the highest sensitivity in EMBASE was 83%. Conclusions: Adverse effects search filters appear to be effective in MEDLINE for achieving either high sensitivity or high precision. Search filters in EMBASE, however, do not appear as effective, particularly in improving precision. 相似文献
14.
15.
Background: Systematic reviews can provide accurate and timely information on adverse effects. An essential part of the systematic review process is a thorough search of the literature. This often requires searching many different sources. However, it is unclear which sources are most effective at providing information on adverse effects. Objective: To identify and summarise studies that have evaluated sources of information on adverse effects. Methods: Studies were located by searching in 10 databases as well as by reference checking, hand searching, citation searching and contacting experts. Results: A total of 6218 citations were retrieved yielding 19 studies which met the inclusion criteria. The included studies tended to focus on the adverse effects of drug interventions and compare the relative value of different sources using the number of relevant references retrieved from searches of each source. However, few studies were conducted recently with a large sample of references. Conclusions: This review suggests that embase , Derwent Drug File, medline and industry submissions may potentially provide the greatest number of relevant references for information on adverse effects of drugs. However, a systematic evaluation of the current value of different sources of information for adverse effects is urgently required. 相似文献
16.
Objectives: To devise and evaluate a sensitive search strategy to retrieve diagnostic studies on specific diagnostic tests for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Methods: Systematic reviews on diagnostic tests for DVT were identified and the studies cited by them used to produce a reference set of search results (to be used to evaluate different search strategies). Five existing diagnosis search filters were combined to produce a sensitive search. This combined search was then refined to produce a more specific strategy, which was run on medline and the results were checked against the reference set. This search was too specific and was modified to produce a more balanced final strategy, which was again tested and the results compared with the reference set. The sensitivity of this newly created strategy was compared with the existing diagnosis searches already found. Finally, studies identified by the final search strategy were critically appraised for validity and relevance and the selected articles were compared with those found in the reference set. Results: The final filter retrieved 124 out of 126 references from the reference set. From the search result, 227 cohort studies were selected and 147 of these were not cited in any of the systematic reviews on diagnostic tests for DVT. Conclusions: The search strategy had 98.8% sensitivity. The precision of 8.8%, although low, compares well with other strategies with high sensitivity. Most of the systematic reviews on diagnosing a DVT have omitted a number of high quality articles. 相似文献
17.
Background: Systematic review articles support the advance of science and translation of research evidence into healthcare practice. Inaccurate retrieval from medline could limit access to reviews. Objective: To determine the quality of indexing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in medline . Methods: The Clinical Hedges Database, containing the results of a hand search of 161 journals, was used to test medline indexing terms for their ability to retrieve systematic reviews that met predefined methodologic criteria (labelled as ‘pass’ review articles) and reviews that reported a meta‐analysis. Results: The Clinical Hedges Database contained 49 028 articles; 753 were ‘pass’ review articles (552 with a meta‐analysis). In total 758 review articles (independent of whether they passed) reported a meta‐analysis. The search strategy that retrieved the highest number of ‘pass’ systematic reviews achieved a sensitivity of 97.1%. The publication type ‘meta analysis’ had a false positive rate of 5.6% (95% CI 3.9 to 7.6), and false negative rate of 0.31% (95% CI 0.26 to 0.36) for retrieving systematic reviews that reported a meta‐analysis. Conclusions: Inaccuracies in indexing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in medline can be partly overcome by a 5‐term search strategy. Introducing a publication type for systematic reviews of the literature could improve retrieval performance. 相似文献
18.
Jos Antonio Salvador-Olivn Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca Rosario Arquero-Avils 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(4):561
Objective:Locating systematic reviews is essential for clinicians and researchers when creating or updating reviews and for decision-making in health care. This study aimed to develop a search filter for retrieving systematic reviews that improves upon the performance of the PubMed systematic review search filter.Methods:Search terms were identified from abstracts of reviews published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the titles of articles indexed as systematic reviews in PubMed. Both the precision of the candidate terms and the number of systematic reviews retrieved from PubMed were evaluated after excluding the subset of articles retrieved by the PubMed systematic review filter. Terms that achieved a precision greater than 70% and relevant publication types indexed with MeSH terms were included in the filter search strategy.Results:The search strategy used in our filter added specific terms not included in PubMed''s systematic review filter and achieved a 61.3% increase in the number of retrieved articles that are potential systematic reviews. Moreover, it achieved an average precision that is likely greater than 80%.Conclusions:The developed search filter will enable users to identify more systematic reviews from PubMed than the PubMed systematic review filter with high precision. 相似文献
19.
Peer teaching and information retrieval: the role of the NICE Evidence search student champion scheme in enhancing students’ confidence 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Laura Sbaffi Elaine Hallsworth Anne Weist 《Health information and libraries journal》2018,35(1):50-63