Sensitivity and precision of adverse effects search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE: a case study of fractures with thiazolidinediones.

BACKGROUND Search filters have been developed in MEDLINE and EMBASE to help overcome the challenges of searching electronic databases for information on adverse effects. However, little evaluation of their effectiveness has been carried out. OBJECTIVES To measure the sensitivity and precision of available adverse effects search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE. METHODS A case study systematic review of fracture related adverse effects associated with the use of thiazolidinediones was used. Twelve MEDLINE search strategies and three EMBASE search strategies were tested. RESULTS Nineteen relevant references from MEDLINE and 24 from EMBASE were included in the review. Four search filters in MEDLINE achieved high sensitivity (95 or 100%) with an improved level of precision from searches without any adverse effects filter. High precision in MEDLINE could also be achieved (up to 53%) using search filters that rely on Medical Subject Headings. No search filter in EMBASE achieved high precision (all were under 5%) and the highest sensitivity in EMBASE was 83%. CONCLUSIONS Adverse effects search filters appear to be effective in MEDLINE for achieving either high sensitivity or high precision. Search filters in EMBASE, however, do not appear as effective, particularly in improving precision.

[1]  A A Tanon,et al.  Patient safety and systematic reviews: finding papers indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL , 2010, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[2]  Su Golder,et al.  Search strategies to identify information on adverse effects: a systematic review. , 2009, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[3]  C. Furberg,et al.  Long-term use of thiazolidinediones and fractures in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[4]  E. Fisher,et al.  Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[5]  J. Nuovo,et al.  Reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials , 2007, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[6]  Carol Lefebvre,et al.  How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. , 2006, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[7]  S. Golder,et al.  Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE. , 2006, Health information and libraries journal.

[8]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Erratum: Selective exposure reporting and Medline indexing limited the search sensitivity for observational studies of the adverse effects of oral contraceptives (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (June 2005) 58:6 (560-567)) , 2005 .

[9]  et al.,et al.  An overview of the design and methods for retrieving high-quality studies for clinical care , 2005, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[10]  Kay Dickersin,et al.  Selective exposure reporting and Medline indexing limited the search sensitivity for observational studies of the adverse effects of oral contraceptives. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  P. Rochon,et al.  Quantifying Adverse Drug Events , 2004, Drug safety.

[12]  Michelle Jenkins,et al.  Evaluation of methodological search filters--a review. , 2004, Health information and libraries journal.

[13]  D. I. Cook,et al.  Balancing the outcomes: reporting adverse events , 2004, The Medical journal of Australia.

[14]  Y. Loke.  Assessing the benefit-harm balance at the bedside , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  M. Pirmohamed,et al.  Collecting and sharing information about harms , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  Lucas M Bachmann,et al.  Identifying diagnostic accuracy studies in EMBASE. , 2003, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[17]  Lo Yk.  The applications and limitations of systematic review and meta-analysis in assessing adverse drug reactions. , 2003 .

[18]  Carol Lefebvre,et al.  The effect of postings information on searching behaviour A statistical approach to designing search filters to find systematic reviews : objectivity enhances accuracy , 2001 .

[19]  J. Aronson,et al.  BMC Medical Research Methodology BioMed Central BMC 1 2001, Medical Research Methodology , 2001 .

[20]  S. Ross,et al.  Drug-related adverse events: a readers' guide to assessing literature reviews and meta-analyses. , 2001, Archives of internal medicine.

[21]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. , 2001, JAMA.

[22]  D Menon,et al.  COMPARISON OF LITERATURE SEARCHES ON QUALITY AND COSTS FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT USING THE MEDLINE AND EMBASE DATABASES , 1999, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[23]  D. Woods,et al.  Medline and Embase complement each other in literature searches , 1998, BMJ.

[24]  D. A. Windsor.  Adverse-Reactions Literature: A Bibliometric Analysis , 1977, Methods of Information in Medicine.