4.6 Article

Retrieval of overviews of systematic reviews in MEDLINE was improved by the development of an objectively derived and validated search strategy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 107-118

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.002

关键词

Overviews of systematic reviews; Search strategy design; Search filter; Text mining; Sensitivity; MEDLINE

资金

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award
  2. International Postgraduate Research Scholarship
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australian Public Health Fellowship [1072366]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Locating overviews of systematic reviews is difficult because of an absence of appropriate indexing terms and inconsistent terminology used to describe overviews. Our objective was to develop a validated search strategy to retrieve overviews in MEDLINE. Study Design and Setting: We derived a test set of overviews from the references of two method articles on overviews. Two population sets were used to identify discriminating terms, that is, terms that appear frequently in the test set but infrequently in two population sets of references found in MEDLINE. We used text mining to conduct a frequency analysis of terms appearing in the titles and abstracts. Candidate terms were combined and tested in MEDLINE in various permutations, and the performance of strategies measured using sensitivity and precision. Results: Two search strategies were developed: a sensitivity-maximizing strategy, achieving 93% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87, 96) and 7% precision (95% CI: 6, 8), and a sensitivity-and-precision maximizing strategy, achieving 66% sensitivity (95% CI: 58, 74) and 21% precision (95% CI: 17, 25). Conclusion: The developed search strategies enable users to more efficiently identify overviews of reviews compared to current strategies. Consistent language in describing overviews would aid in their identification, as would a specific MEDLINE Publication Type. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据