3.9 Article

Usefulness of systematic review search strategies in finding child health systematic reviews in MEDLINE

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE
卷 162, 期 2, 页码 111-116

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2007.40

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the sensitivity and precision of existing search strategies for retrieving child health systematic reviews in MEDLINE using PubMed. Design: Filter ( diagnostic) accuracy study. We identified existing search strategies for systematic reviews, combined them with a filter that identifies articles relevant to child health, and applied the combination in MEDLINE to a reference set of child health systematic reviews. Main Outcome Measures: Total number of records retrieved, sensitivity, and precision. Results: We tested 9 search filters. Sensitivity of the systematic review filters combined with the child filter ranged from 68% to 96%; sensitivity of the child filter alone was 98%. The number of records retrieved with PubMed ( limited to January 1990-January 2006) by the systematic review filters combined with the child filter ranged from 7861 to 618 053. Precision for the combined filters ranged from 2% to 52%. Because of poor reporting of specific systematic review criteria in both titles and abstracts, in 25% of the records screened we were unsure whether the article concerned a systematic review according to our definition. Conclusions: The high numbers of records yielded by sensitive search strategies and the low precision threaten the use of systematic reviews for clinical decision making and guideline development. Reporting of specific systematic review criteria in titles and abstracts is poor, and reporting recommendations given by Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses ( QUOROM) should be used more strictly. To make identification using MEDLINE easier, there is an urgent need to set minimal criteria that any review should fulfill for it to be indexed as a systematic review.

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

3.9
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