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
  • [21] Systematic Reviews of Genetic Association Studies
    Sagoo, Gurdeep S.
    Little, Julian
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    [J]. PLOS MEDICINE, 2009, 6 (03) : 0239 - 0245
  • [22] Visual Text Mining: Ensuring the Presence of Relevant Studies in Systematic Literature Reviews
    Felizardo, Katia Romero
    Barbosa, Ellen Francine
    Martins, Rafael Messias
    Dias Valle, Pedro Henrique
    Maldonado, Jose Carlos
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING AND KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING, 2015, 25 (05) : 909 - 928
  • [23] Systematic reviews
    Gubitz, G
    Thomas, B
    [J]. NEUROLOGY, 1998, 51 (06) : 1778 - 1778
  • [24] Systematic reviews
    Stott, DJ
    Barber, M
    [J]. AGE AND AGEING, 2001, 30 (02) : 127 - 128
  • [25] Systematic reviews
    White, K
    Styles, B
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 2005, 47 (02) : 264 - 266
  • [26] Systematic reviews
    Franklin, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, 1996, 89 (09) : 538 - 538
  • [27] Systematic Reviews
    Milner, Kerry A.
    [J]. ONCOLOGY NURSING FORUM, 2015, 42 (01) : 89 - 93
  • [28] Quality assessment practice in systematic reviews of mediation studies: results from an overview of systematic reviews
    Tat-Thang Vo
    Cashin, Aidan
    Superchi, Cecilia
    Pham Hien Trang Tu
    Thanh Binh Nguyen
    Boutron, Isabelle
    MacKinnon, David
    Vanderweele, Tyler
    Lee, Hopin
    Vansteelandt, Stijn
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 143 : 137 - 148
  • [29] Systematic reviews
    Wetherell, Rory
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-EUROPEAN VOLUME, 2017, 42 (04) : 432 - 432
  • [30] Systematic reviews
    Lancaster, T
    [J]. FAMILY PRACTICE, 1997, 14 (01) : 90 - 90