Correction: Development and Validation of Filters for the Retrieval of Studies of Clinical Examination From Medline

Background: Efficiently finding clinical examination studies—studies that quantify the value of symptoms and signs in the diagnosis of disease—is becoming increasingly difficult. Filters developed to retrieve studies of diagnosis from Medline lack specificity because they also retrieve large numbers of studies on the diagnostic value of imaging and laboratory tests. Objective: The objective was to develop filters for retrieving clinical examination studies from Medline. Methods: We developed filters in a training dataset and validated them in a testing database. We created the training database by hand searching 161 journals (n = 52,636 studies). We evaluated the recall and precision of 65 candidate single-term filters in identifying studies that reported the sensitivity and specificity of symptoms or signs in the training database. To identify best combinations of these search terms, we used recursive partitioning. The best-performing filters in the training database as well as 13 previously developed filters were evaluated in a testing database (n = 431,120 studies). We also examined the impact of examining reference lists of included articles on recall. Results: In the training database, the single-term filters with the highest recall (95%) and the highest precision (8.4%) were diagnosis[subheading] and “medical history taking”[MeSH], respectively. The multiple-term filter developed using recursive partitioning (the RP filter) had a recall of 100% and a precision of 89% in the training database. In the testing database, the Haynes-2004-Sensitive filter (recall 98%, precision 0.13%) and the RP filter (recall 89%, precision 0.52%) showed the best performance. The recall of these two filters increased to 99% and 94% respectively with review of the reference lists of the included articles. Conclusions: Recursive partitioning appears to be a useful method of developing search filters. The empirical search filters proposed here can assist in the retrieval of clinical examination studies from Medline; however, because of the low precision of the search strategies, retrieving relevant studies remains challenging. Improving precision may require systematic changes in the tagging of articles by the National Library of Medicine. [J Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e82]

[1]  Anne Brice,et al.  The number needed to read-a new measure of journal value. , 2005, Health information and libraries journal.

[2]  R Brian Haynes,et al.  EMBASE search strategies achieved high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving methodologically sound systematic reviews. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  B. Breese,et al.  A simple scorecard for the tentative diagnosis of streptococcal pharyngitis. , 1977, American journal of diseases of children.

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

[5]  Patrick M. M. Bossuyt,et al.  The STARD Statement for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Application to the History and Physical Examination , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[6]  R. Haynes,et al.  Medline : analytical survey scientifically strong studies of diagnosis from Optimal search strategies for retrieving , 2004 .

[7]  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.

[8]  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.

[9]  G Sandler,et al.  Costs of unnecessary tests. , 1979, British medical journal.

[10]  E F Cook,et al.  Empiric comparison of multivariate analytic techniques: advantages and disadvantages of recursive partitioning analysis. , 1984, Journal of chronic diseases.

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

[12]  Paul A. Fontelo,et al.  Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions , 2007, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[13]  D. Rennie,et al.  The clinical examination. An agenda to make it more rational. , 1997, JAMA.

[14]  Victor M Montori,et al.  Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines , 2002, BMC medical research methodology.

[15]  J. Hampton,et al.  Relative contributions of history-taking, physical examination, and laboratory investigation to diagnosis and management of medical outpatients. , 1975, British medical journal.

[16]  Patrick Bossuyt,et al.  Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  M. C. Peterson,et al.  Contributions of the history, physical examination, and laboratory investigation in making medical diagnoses. , 1992, The Western journal of medicine.

[18]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  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.