Evaluation of methodological search filters--a review.

OBJECTIVES The objectives of the study were: to provide an overview of approaches to methodological search filter development; to identify and critically review the stages of methodological search filter development; to devise a search filter appraisal checklist based on the review. METHODS An iterative approach to searching was employed utilizing health and library databases, the world wide web and citation searching. Further systematic methods included hand searching of key journals in the field of search filter development, contacting known experts in the field and scanning reference lists of relevant papers to identify additional studies. Altogether, 51 potentially relevant papers were found, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS Four stages of search filter development were identified from the literature (search term selection, identification of a gold standard, evaluation and validation). Variations in the methods used to approach these four stages were identified, most importantly in the extent to which search filters are tested and validated. CONCLUSION Awareness of the process and limitations involved in search filter development is essential to make an informed decision on the applicability and validity of search filters. The findings of this review indicate a considerable agenda for future research, in particular, to improve the quality of reporting of search filters and to inform users on their use and application. Based on the review, guidance in the appraisal process of search filters is given in the form of a checklist.

[1]  T C Chalmers,et al.  More on MEDLINE searches. , 1988, Controlled clinical trials.

[2]  Carol Lefebvre,et al.  Identifying systematic reviews in MEDLINE: developing an objective approach to search strategy design , 1998, J. Inf. Sci..

[3]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews , 1994 .

[4]  R. Brian Haynes,et al.  Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. , 1994, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[5]  Karen A Robinson,et al.  Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.

[6]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. , 2003, Radiology.

[7]  J. Harrison.  Designing a search strategy to identify and retrieve articles on evidence-based health care using MEDLINE. , 1997, Health libraries review.

[8]  Nancy L. Wilczynski,et al.  PDQ Evidence-Based Principles and Practice , 1999 .

[9]  I. Stiell,et al.  Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. , 1999, Annals of emergency medicine.

[10]  C. Pope,et al.  Assessing quality in qualitative research , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  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 .

[12]  Maria J. Grant.  Searching for qualitative research studies on the MEDLINE database : the development of an optimal search strategy , 2000 .

[13]  Khalid S. Khan,et al.  A Two‐Term MEDLINE Search Strategy for Identifying Randomized Trials in Obstetrics and Gynecology , 1998, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  J. Dorsch,et al.  The evolving role of the librarian in evidence-based medicine. , 1999, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[15]  G. Dinant,et al.  Identifying relevant diagnostic studies in MEDLINE. The diagnostic value of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and dipstick as an example. , 1997, Family practice.

[16]  Lucas M. Bachmann,et al.  Research Paper: Identifying Diagnostic Studies in MEDLINE: Reducing the Number Needed to Read , 2002, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[17]  N L Wilczynski,et al.  Assessment of methodologic search filters in MEDLINE. , 1993, Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care.

[18]  Russell Boyd,et al.  Accuracy of combining clinical probability score and simpliRED d-dimer for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism , 2003 .

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

[20]  T. Poynard,et al.  The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver disease from the medical literature. A comparison of MEDLARS and manual methods. , 1985, Controlled clinical trials.

[21]  A F Long,et al.  Searching for information on outcomes: do you need to be comprehensive? , 1998, Quality in health care : QHC.

[22]  J. Eldredge.  Evidence-based librarianship: an overview. , 2000, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[23]  P D Bezemer,et al.  Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  Dave Miller,et al.  Information retrieval for evidence-based decision making , 1999, J. Documentation.

[25]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  How to read a paper: The Medline database , 1997, BMJ.

[26]  Bette Jean Ingui,et al.  Research Paper: Searching for Clinical Prediction Rules in MEDLINE , 2001, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[27]  A. Booth,et al.  Evidence-based librarianship: one small step. , 2002, Health information and libraries journal.

[28]  N L Wilczynski,et al.  Quantitative comparison of pre-explosions and subheadings with methodologic search terms in MEDLINE. , 1994, Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care.

[29]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Another fine MeSH: clinical medicine meets information science , 1999, J. Inf. Sci..

[30]  Michelle Jenkins,et al.  Awareness, use and opinions of methodological search filters used for the retrieval of evidence-based medical literature-a questionnaire survey. , 2004, Health information and libraries journal.

[31]  N L Wilczynski,et al.  Reasons for the loss of sensitivity and specificity of methodologic MeSH terms and textwords in MEDLINE. , 1995, Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care.

[32]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Becoming ADEPT: delivering distance learning on evidence‐based medicine for librarians , 1998 .

[33]  K A McKibbon,et al.  The quality and impact of MEDLINE searches performed by end users. , 1995, Health libraries review.

[34]  W R Hersh,et al.  How well do physicians use electronic information retrieval systems? A framework for investigation and systematic review. , 1998, JAMA.

[35]  J Glanville,et al.  Identifying systematic reviews: key resources , 2000, ACP journal club.

[36]  K. Shojania,et al.  Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. , 2001, Effective clinical practice : ECP.

[37]  E. Crumley,et al.  Developing evidence-based librarianship: practical steps for implementation. , 2002, Health information and libraries journal.

[38]  Sam Vincent,et al.  Clinical Evidence diagnosis: Developing a sensitive search strategy to retrieve diagnostic studies on deep vein thrombosis: a pragmatic approach. , 2003, Health information and libraries journal.

[39]  R. Brian Haynes,et al.  Robustness of empirical search strategies for clinical content in MEDLINE , 2002, AMIA.

[40]  Yindalon Aphinyanagphongs,et al.  Text Categorization Models for Retrieval of High Quality Articles in Internal Medicine , 2003, AMIA.