SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS - IDENTIFYING RELEVANT STUDIES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

被引:1259
|
作者
DICKERSIN, K [1 ]
SCHERER, R [1 ]
LEFEBVRE, C [1 ]
机构
[1] UNITED KINGDOM COCHRANE CTR, OXFORD OX2 7LG, ENGLAND
来源
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 1994年 / 309卷 / 6964期
关键词
D O I
10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective-To examine the sensitivity and precision of Medline searching for randomised clinical trials. Design-Comparison of results of Medline searches to a ''gold standard'' of known randomised clinical trials in ophthalmology published in 1988; systematic review (meta-analysis) of results of similar, but separate, studies from many fields of medicine. Populations-Randomised clinical trials published in 1988 in journals indexed in Medline, and those not indexed in Medline and identified by hand search, comprised the gold standard. Gold standards for the other studies combined in the meta-analysis were based on: randomised clinical trials published in any journal, whether indexed in Medline or not; those published in any journal indexed in Medline; or those published in a selected group of journals indexed in Medline. Main outcome measure-Sensitivity (proportion of the total number of known randomised clinical trials identified by the search) and precision (proportion of publications retrieved by Medline that were actually randomised clinical trials) were calculated for each study and combined to obtain weighted means. Searches producing the ''best'' sensitivity were used for sensitivity and precision estimates when multiple searches were performed. Results-The sensitivity of searching for ophthalmology randomised clinical trials published in 1988 was 82%, when the gold standard was for any journal, 87% for any journal indexed in Medline, and 88% for selected journals indexed in Medline. Weighted means for sensitivity across all studies were 51%, 77%, and 63%, respectively. The weighted mean for precision was 8% (median 32.5%). Most searchers seemed not to use freetext subject terms and truncation of those terms. Conclusion-Although the indexing terms available for searching Medline for randomised clinical trials have improved, sensitivity still remains unsatisfactory. A mechanism is needed to ''register'' known trials, preferably by retrospective tagging of Medline entries, and incorporating trials published before 1966 and in journals not indexed by Medline into the system.
引用
收藏
页码:1286 / 1291
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] IDENTIFYING RELEVANT STUDIES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
    COUNSELL, C
    FRASER, H
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 310 (6972): : 126 - 126
  • [2] IDENTIFYING RELEVANT STUDIES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
    CLARKE, M
    GREAVES, L
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 310 (6981): : 741 - 741
  • [3] Machine learning for identifying relevant publications in updates of systematic reviews of diagnostic test studies
    Lange, Toni
    Schwarzer, Guido
    Datzmann, Thomas
    Binder, Harald
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2021, 12 (04) : 506 - 515
  • [4] Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people
    Shenkin, Susan D.
    Harrison, Jennifer K.
    Wilkinson, Tim
    Dodds, Richard M.
    Ioannidis, John P. A.
    [J]. AGE AND AGEING, 2017, 46 (05) : 722 - 728
  • [5] Systematic reviews in five steps: II. Identifying relevant literature
    Khan, K. S.
    Bueno-Cavanillas, A.
    Zamora, J.
    [J]. MEDICINA DE FAMILIA-SEMERGEN, 2022, 48 (06): : 431 - 436
  • [6] A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
    Bow S.
    Klassen J.
    Chisholm A.
    Tjosvold L.
    Thomson D.
    Klassen T.P.
    Moher D.
    Hartling L.
    [J]. BMC Pediatrics, 10 (1)
  • [7] Systematic reviews of reviews of reviews
    McColl, E.
    [J]. BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL, 2022, 233 (08) : 587 - 587
  • [8] Systematic reviews of reviews of reviews
    E. McColl
    [J]. British Dental Journal, 2022, 233 : 586 - 586
  • [9] Identifying studies for systematic reviews - An example from medical imaging
    Berry, E
    Kelly, S
    Hutton, J
    Harris, KM
    Smith, MA
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2000, 16 (02) : 668 - 672
  • [10] Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach?
    Caird, Jenny
    Sutcliffe, Katy
    Kwan, Irene
    Dickson, Kelly
    Thomas, James
    [J]. EVIDENCE & POLICY, 2015, 11 (01): : 81 - 97