首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 312 毫秒
1.
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   

2.

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   

3.
Objective:This study retroactively investigated the search used in a 2019 review by Hayden et al., one of the first systematic reviews of prognostic factors that was published in the Cochrane Library. The review was designed to address recognized weaknesses in reviews of prognosis by using multiple supplementary search methods in addition to traditional electronic database searching.Methods:The authors used four approaches to comprehensively assess aspects of systematic review literature searching for prognostic factor studies: (1) comparison of search recall of broad versus focused electronic search strategies, (2) linking of search methods of origin for eligible studies, (3) analysis of impact of supplementary search methods on meta-analysis conclusions, and (4) analysis of prognosis filter performance.Results:The review''s focused electronic search strategy resulted in a 91% reduction in recall, compared to a broader version. Had the team relied on the focused search strategy without using supplementary search methods, they would have missed 23 of 58 eligible studies that were indexed in MEDLINE; additionally, the number of included studies in 2 of the review''s primary outcome meta-analyses would have changed. Using a broader strategy without supplementary searches would still have missed 5 studies. The prognosis filter used in the review demonstrated the highest sensitivity of any of the filters tested.Conclusions:Our study results support recommendations for supplementary search methods made by prominent systematic review methodologists. Leaving out any supplemental search methods would have resulted in missed studies, and these omissions would not have been prevented by using a broader search strategy or any of the other prognosis filters tested.

Open in a separate windowLeah Boulos  相似文献   

4.
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   

5.
Objective:Reproducibility of systemic reviews (SRs) can be hindered by the presence of citation bias. Citation bias may occur when authors of SRs conduct hand-searches of included study reference lists to identify additional studies. Such a practice may lead to exaggerated SR summary effects. The purpose of this paper is to examine the prevalence of hand-searching reference lists in otolaryngology SRs.Methods:The authors searched for systematic reviews published in eight clinical otolaryngology journals using the Cochrane Library and PubMed, with the date parameter of January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017. Two independent authors worked separately to extract data from each SR for the following elements: whether reference lists were hand-searched, other kinds of supplemental searching, PRISMA adherence, and funding source. Following extraction, the investigators met to review discrepancies and achieve consensus.Results:A total of 539 systemic reviews, 502 from clinical journals and 37 from the Cochrane library, were identified. Of those SRs, 72.4% (390/539) hand-searched reference lists, including 97.3% (36/37) of Cochrane reviews. For 228 (58.5%) of the SRs that hand-searched reference lists, no other supplemental search (e.g., search of trial registries) was conducted.Conclusions:These findings indicate that hand-searching reference lists is a common practice in otolaryngology SRs. Moreover, a majority of studies at risk of citation bias did not attempt to mitigate the bias by conducting additional supplemental searches. The implication is that summary effects in otolaryngology systematic reviews may be biased toward statistically significant findings.  相似文献   

6.
Objective:The decisions and processes that may compose a systematic search strategy have not been formally identified and categorized. This study aimed to (1) identify all decisions that could be made and processes that could be used in a systematic search strategy and (2) create a hierarchical framework of those decisions and processes.Methods:The literature was searched for documents or guides on conducting a literature search for a systematic review or other evidence synthesis. The decisions or processes for locating studies were extracted from eligible documents and categorized into a structured hierarchical framework. Feedback from experts was sought to revise the framework. The framework was revised iteratively and tested using recently published literature on systematic searching.Results:Guidance documents were identified from expert organizations and a search of the literature and Internet. Data were extracted from 74 eligible documents to form the initial framework. The framework was revised based on feedback from 9 search experts and further review and testing by the authors. The hierarchical framework consists of 119 decisions or processes sorted into 17 categories and arranged under 5 topics. These topics are “Skill of the searcher,” “Selecting information to identify,” “Searching the literature electronically,” “Other ways to identify studies,” and “Updating the systematic review.”Conclusions:The work identifies and classifies the decisions and processes used in systematic searching. Future work can now focus on assessing and prioritizing research on the best methods for successfully identifying all eligible studies for a systematic review.  相似文献   

7.
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   

8.

Background

Search filter development for adverse effects has tended to focus on retrieving studies of drug interventions. However, a different approach is required for surgical interventions.

Objective

To develop and validate search filters for medline and Embase for the adverse effects of surgical interventions.

Methods

Systematic reviews of surgical interventions where the primary focus was to evaluate adverse effect(s) were sought. The included studies within these reviews were divided randomly into a development set, evaluation set and validation set. Using word frequency analysis we constructed a sensitivity maximising search strategy and this was tested in the evaluation and validation set.

Results

Three hundred and fifty eight papers were included from 19 surgical intervention reviews. Three hundred and fifty two papers were available on medline and 348 were available on Embase. Generic adverse effects search strategies in medline and Embase could achieve approximately 90% relative recall. Recall could be further improved with the addition of specific adverse effects terms to the search strategies.

Conclusion

We have derived and validated a novel search filter that has reasonable performance for identifying adverse effects of surgical interventions in medline and Embase. However, we appreciate the limitations of our methods, and recommend further research on larger sample sizes and prospective systematic reviews.  相似文献   

9.
Background:Systematic reviews are comprehensive, robust, inclusive, transparent, and reproducible when bringing together the evidence to answer a research question. Various guidelines provide recommendations on the expertise required to conduct a systematic review, where and how to search for literature, and what should be reported in the published review. However, the finer details of the search results are not typically reported to allow the search methods or search efficiency to be evaluated.Case Presentation:This case study presents a search summary table, containing the details of which databases were searched, which supplementary search methods were used, and where the included articles were found. It was developed and published alongside a recent systematic review. This simple format can be used in future systematic reviews to improve search results reporting.Conclusions:Publishing a search summary table in all systematic reviews would add to the growing evidence base about information retrieval, which would help in determining which databases to search for which type of review (in terms of either topic or scope), what supplementary search methods are most effective, what type of literature is being included, and where it is found. It would also provide evidence for future searching and search methods research.  相似文献   

10.

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   

11.
  相似文献   

12.
《Communication monographs》2012,79(3):169-183

The logical empiricist philosophy of science which underpins the bulk of contemporary communication research is outlined and recent criticisms of this view are surveyed. Two implications concerning the conduct of communication theory and research are drawn from these criticisms: (i) maximally productive research involves the systematic extension, elaboration, and defense of a theoretical framework and (ii) theoretical and conceptual analysis should be recognized as an important element in the achievement of a satisfactory theoretical account.  相似文献   

13.
Background:Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.Methods:The checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.Results:The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.Conclusions:The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.  相似文献   

14.

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   

15.
Background:Every step in the systematic review process has challenges, ranging from resistance by review teams to adherence to standard methodology to low-energy commitment to full participation. These challenges can derail the project and result in significant delays, duplication of work, and failure to complete the review. Communication during the systematic review process is key to ensuring it runs smoothly and is identified as a core competency for librarians involved in systematic reviews.Case Presentation:This case report presents effective communication approaches that our librarians employ to address challenges encountered while working with systematic review teams. The communication strategies we describe engage teams through information, questions, and action items and lead to productive collaborations with publishable systematic reviews.Conclusions:Effective communication with review teams keeps systematic review projects moving forward. The techniques covered in this case study strive to minimize misunderstandings, educate collaborators, and, in our experience, have led to multiple successful collaborations and publications. Librarians working in the systematic review space will recognize these challenges and can adapt these techniques to their own environments.  相似文献   

16.
Objective:In regard to locating clinical trials for a systematic review, limited information is available about how librarians locate clinical trials in biomedical databases, including (1) how much information researchers provide librarians to assist with the development of a comprehensive search strategy, (2) which tools librarians turn to for information about study design methodology, and (3) librarians'' confidence levels in their knowledge of study design methodology. A survey was developed to explore these aspects of how a medical librarian locates clinical trials when facilitating systematic reviews for researchers.Methods:In this cross-sectional study, a 21-question survey was sent to medical librarians via several email listservs during April 2020. Respondents were limited to librarians who make the decisions on search terms for systematic reviews.Results:Responses (n=120) indicated that librarians were often asked to search for various types of clinical trials. However, there was not a consistent method for creating search strategies that locate diverse types of clinical trials. Multiple methods were used for search strategy development, with hedges being the most popular method. In general, these librarians considered themselves to be confident in locating trials. Different resources were used to inform study types, including textbooks, articles, library guides and websites.Discussion:Medical librarians indicated that while they felt confident in their searching skills, they did not have a definitive source of information about the various types of clinical trials, and their responses demonstrated a clear need and desire for more information on study design methodology.  相似文献   

17.
The Campbell Collaboration is one organization providing standards for education-related systematic reviews. Librarians are often involved in search strategy development or as research team members for Campbell reviews which allows us to investigate librarian impact. This study examines protocols and reviews published by Campbell's Education Coordinating Group for adherence to the search standards from the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist for evaluating searches. Eligible studies include reviews with protocols published October 2014 to January 2019. Nineteen matched protocols and reviews were evaluated by two authors independently using a form based on MECCIR and PRESS. We compared adherence differences between protocols and reviews and adherence differences due to librarian involvement. Overall, the protocols and reviews generally adhered to search standards, with greater adherence for reviews reporting librarian involvement. Implications for education librarians include: encouragement to become familiar with the systematic review process; selecting and following appropriate guidelines and standards for conducting and reporting reviews; developing proficiency with search strategy development and reporting to reduce bias and increase transparency and reproducibility; and advocating for acknowledgement or authorship in publications to give credit for expertise and contributions to SR projects.  相似文献   

18.
ABSTRACT

Digital humanities (DH) represents an emerging framework for digital curation. This study focuses on the evolving relationship of the DH (including history) to digital curation and archives and describes the models of collaboration in the digital environment. A conceptual framework is presented, followed by discussions of scarcity and abundance, archival frameworks, models of collaboration, and a review of selected DH projects. Despite the semantic disagreements over the term archives, researchers and curators should consider each other's perspectives for continued collaboration.  相似文献   

19.
Abstract

This article contends that the relative effectiveness of Lexis and Westlaw should be measured by their ability to find and rank relevant documents. It contains an evaluation of Boolean systems and includes discussion of the Blair and Maron and the Dabney studies in which high recall was the goal of online searches. It then suggests that when other means of discovering relevant cases are available, the need for high recall is diminished. Finally, the article examines and presents performance test results of Lexis' Freestyle and Westlaw's Win natural language search engines.  相似文献   

20.
Objective:Understanding health informatics (HI) publication trends in Saudi Arabia may serve as a framework for future research efforts and contribute toward meeting national “e-Health” goals. The authors’ intention was to understand the state of the HI field in Saudi Arabia by exploring publication trends and their alignment with national goals.Methods:A scoping review was performed to identify HI publications from Saudi Arabia in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. We analyzed publication trends based on topics, keywords, and how they align with the Ministry of Health''s (MOH''s) “digital health journey” framework.Results:The total number of publications included was 242. We found 1 (0.4%) publication in 1995–1999, 11 (4.5%) publications in 2000–2009, and 230 (95.0%) publications in 2010–2019. We categorized publications into 3 main HI fields and 4 subfields: 73.1% (n=177) of publications were in clinical informatics (85.1%, n=151 medical informatics; 5.6%, n=10 pharmacy informatics; 6.8%, n=12 nursing informatics; 2.3%, n=4 dental informatics); 22.3% (n=54) were in consumer health informatics; and 4.5% (n=11) were in public health informatics. The most common keyword was “medical informatics” (21.5%, n=52). MOH framework–based analysis showed that most publications were categorized as “digitally enabled care” and “digital health foundations.”Conclusions:The years of 2000–2009 may be seen as an infancy stage of the HI field in Saudi Arabia. Exploring how the Saudi Arabian MOH''s e-Health initiatives may influence research is valuable for advancing the field. Data exchange and interoperability, artificial intelligence, and intelligent health enterprises might be future research directions in Saudi Arabia.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号