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
  • [41] Systematic Reviews of Systematic Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Studies Reviews in Healthcare Research: How to Assess the Methodological Quality of Included Reviews?
    Rouleau, Genevieve
    Quan Nha Hong
    Kaur, Navdeep
    Gagnon, Marie-Pierre
    Cote, Jose
    Bouix-Picasso, Julien
    Pluye, Pierre
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MIXED METHODS RESEARCH, 2023, 17 (01) : 51 - 69
  • [42] Umbrella reviews (systematic review of reviews)
    Faulkner, Guy
    Fagan, Matthew James
    Lee, Jacqueline
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 2022, 15 (01) : 73 - 90
  • [43] Thinking of conceptual reviews and systematic reviews
    Ayala, Ricardo A.
    [J]. NURSING INQUIRY, 2018, 25 (04)
  • [44] A Systematic Approach to Systematic Reviews
    Stannard, Daphne
    [J]. AORN JOURNAL, 2022, 115 (02) : 124 - 127
  • [45] Literature reviews vs systematic reviews
    Robinson, Priscilla
    Lowe, John
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2015, 39 (02) : 103 - 103
  • [46] Empty Reviews: A Description and Consideration of Cochrane Systematic Reviews with No Included Studies
    Yaffe, Joanne
    Montgomery, Paul
    Hopewell, Sally
    Shepard, Lindsay Dianne
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (05):
  • [47] A new measure to assess the systematicity of the abstracts of reviews self-identifying as systematic reviews
    Belle, Alvine Boaye
    Zhao, Yixi
    [J]. 2022 29TH ASIA-PACIFIC SOFTWARE ENGINEERING CONFERENCE, APSEC, 2022, : 576 - 577
  • [48] Identifying Strategies for Study Selection in Systematic Reviews and Maps
    Petersen, Kai
    Bin Ali, Nauman
    [J]. 2011 FIFTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON EMPIRICAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING AND MEASUREMENT (ESEM 2011), 2011, : 351 - 354
  • [49] Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review
    Elshafay, Abdelrahman
    Omran, Esraa Salah
    Abdelkhalek, Mariam
    El-Badry, Mohamed Omar
    Eisa, Heba Gamal
    Fala, Salma Y.
    Dang, Thao
    Ghanem, Mohammad A. T.
    Elbadawy, Maha
    Elhady, Mohamed Tamer
    Nguyen Lam Vuong
    Hirayama, Kenji
    Nguyen Tien Huy
    [J]. CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2019, 35 (09) : 1631 - 1641
  • [50] Salutogenically focused outcomes in systematic reviews of intrapartum interventions: A systematic review of systematic reviews
    Smith, Valerie
    Daly, Deirdre
    Lundgren, Ingela
    Eri, Tine
    Benstoem, Carina
    Devane, Declan
    [J]. MIDWIFERY, 2014, 30 (04) : E151 - E156