Loading…
Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies
To determine the usefulness of methodological filters in search strategies for diagnostic studies in systematic reviews. We made an inventory of existing methodological search filters for diagnostic accuracy studies and applied them in PubMed to a reference set derived from 27 published systematic r...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2006-03, Vol.59 (3), p.234-240 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-84f41e48ecdc1b20e88b44c8dc24ba2a15885e3c5f39e7c49dca62ebe776ac423 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-84f41e48ecdc1b20e88b44c8dc24ba2a15885e3c5f39e7c49dca62ebe776ac423 |
container_end_page | 240 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 234 |
container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
container_volume | 59 |
creator | Leeflang, M.M.G. Scholten, R.J.P.M. Rutjes, A.W.S. Reitsma, J.B. Bossuyt, P.M.M. |
description | To determine the usefulness of methodological filters in search strategies for diagnostic studies in systematic reviews.
We made an inventory of existing methodological search filters for diagnostic accuracy studies and applied them in PubMed to a reference set derived from 27 published systematic reviews in a broad range of clinical fields. Outcome measures were the fraction of not identified relevant studies and the reduction in the number of studies to read.
We tested 12 search filters. Of the studies included in the systematic reviews, 2%–28% did not pass the sensitive search filters, 4%–24% did not pass the accurate filters, and 39%–42% did not pass the specific filters. Decrease in number-needed-to-read when a search filter was used in a search strategy for a diagnostic systematic review varied from 0% to 77%.
The use of methodological filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to omission of a considerable number of relevant studies that would otherwise be included. When preparing a systematic review, it may be preferable to avoid using methodological filters. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.014 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67671198</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435605003276</els_id><sourcerecordid>2734470721</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-84f41e48ecdc1b20e88b44c8dc24ba2a15885e3c5f39e7c49dca62ebe776ac423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1r3DAURUVpaaZp_0IQlHY3rmTJlrxrCf2CQDfNWshPzxkZjzSV5MD8-2qYCYFuutLm3PsuOoTccNZwxvtPczPD4gMefNMy1jVMNYzLF2TDtdLbbmj5S7Jheui2UnT9FXmT88wYV0x1r8kV76XWohMbcrzPSONE91h20cUlPniwC81oE-zo5JeCKdMSqXcYip-O1Hn7EGIuHqgFWJOFI81ldR4zBRvogtadAmVXi_c-Zx_D6ULCBR9tKE_wW_JqskvGd5f3mtx_-_r79sf27tf3n7df7rYgW1m2Wk6So9QIDvjYMtR6lBK0g1aOtrW807pDAd0kBlQgBwe2b3FEpXpbK8Q1-XjuPaT4Z8VcTB0FuCw2YFyz6VWvOB90Bd__A85xTaFuM5wJwbUUraxUf6YgxZwTTuaQ_N6mY4XMSY2ZzZMac1JjmDJVTQ3eXOrXcY_uOXZxUYEPF8Dm6mBKNoDPz5yqVoXklft85rD-2qPHZDJ4DIDOJ4RiXPT_2_IXk5-yTg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1033184324</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024</source><creator>Leeflang, M.M.G. ; Scholten, R.J.P.M. ; Rutjes, A.W.S. ; Reitsma, J.B. ; Bossuyt, P.M.M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Leeflang, M.M.G. ; Scholten, R.J.P.M. ; Rutjes, A.W.S. ; Reitsma, J.B. ; Bossuyt, P.M.M.</creatorcontrib><description>To determine the usefulness of methodological filters in search strategies for diagnostic studies in systematic reviews.
We made an inventory of existing methodological search filters for diagnostic accuracy studies and applied them in PubMed to a reference set derived from 27 published systematic reviews in a broad range of clinical fields. Outcome measures were the fraction of not identified relevant studies and the reduction in the number of studies to read.
We tested 12 search filters. Of the studies included in the systematic reviews, 2%–28% did not pass the sensitive search filters, 4%–24% did not pass the accurate filters, and 39%–42% did not pass the specific filters. Decrease in number-needed-to-read when a search filter was used in a search strategy for a diagnostic systematic review varied from 0% to 77%.
The use of methodological filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to omission of a considerable number of relevant studies that would otherwise be included. When preparing a systematic review, it may be preferable to avoid using methodological filters.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.014</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16488353</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomedical Research ; Databases, Bibliographic ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic Errors ; Epidemiology ; Evidence-based medicine ; Evidence-Based Medicine - methods ; Filters ; General aspects ; Human ; Humans ; Information storage and retrieval ; Information Storage and Retrieval - methods ; Information Storage and Retrieval - standards ; Medical sciences ; MEDLINE ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Methodology ; Prostate cancer ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; PubMed ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Subject Headings</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2006-03, Vol.59 (3), p.234-240</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-84f41e48ecdc1b20e88b44c8dc24ba2a15885e3c5f39e7c49dca62ebe776ac423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-84f41e48ecdc1b20e88b44c8dc24ba2a15885e3c5f39e7c49dca62ebe776ac423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17592341$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16488353$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Leeflang, M.M.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scholten, R.J.P.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutjes, A.W.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reitsma, J.B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bossuyt, P.M.M.</creatorcontrib><title>Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>To determine the usefulness of methodological filters in search strategies for diagnostic studies in systematic reviews.
We made an inventory of existing methodological search filters for diagnostic accuracy studies and applied them in PubMed to a reference set derived from 27 published systematic reviews in a broad range of clinical fields. Outcome measures were the fraction of not identified relevant studies and the reduction in the number of studies to read.
We tested 12 search filters. Of the studies included in the systematic reviews, 2%–28% did not pass the sensitive search filters, 4%–24% did not pass the accurate filters, and 39%–42% did not pass the specific filters. Decrease in number-needed-to-read when a search filter was used in a search strategy for a diagnostic systematic review varied from 0% to 77%.
The use of methodological filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to omission of a considerable number of relevant studies that would otherwise be included. When preparing a systematic review, it may be preferable to avoid using methodological filters.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Databases, Bibliographic</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnostic Errors</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine - methods</subject><subject>Filters</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information storage and retrieval</subject><subject>Information Storage and Retrieval - methods</subject><subject>Information Storage and Retrieval - standards</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>MEDLINE</subject><subject>Meta-Analysis as Topic</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>PubMed</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Subject Headings</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkU1r3DAURUVpaaZp_0IQlHY3rmTJlrxrCf2CQDfNWshPzxkZjzSV5MD8-2qYCYFuutLm3PsuOoTccNZwxvtPczPD4gMefNMy1jVMNYzLF2TDtdLbbmj5S7Jheui2UnT9FXmT88wYV0x1r8kV76XWohMbcrzPSONE91h20cUlPniwC81oE-zo5JeCKdMSqXcYip-O1Hn7EGIuHqgFWJOFI81ldR4zBRvogtadAmVXi_c-Zx_D6ULCBR9tKE_wW_JqskvGd5f3mtx_-_r79sf27tf3n7df7rYgW1m2Wk6So9QIDvjYMtR6lBK0g1aOtrW807pDAd0kBlQgBwe2b3FEpXpbK8Q1-XjuPaT4Z8VcTB0FuCw2YFyz6VWvOB90Bd__A85xTaFuM5wJwbUUraxUf6YgxZwTTuaQ_N6mY4XMSY2ZzZMac1JjmDJVTQ3eXOrXcY_uOXZxUYEPF8Dm6mBKNoDPz5yqVoXklft85rD-2qPHZDJ4DIDOJ4RiXPT_2_IXk5-yTg</recordid><startdate>20060301</startdate><enddate>20060301</enddate><creator>Leeflang, M.M.G.</creator><creator>Scholten, R.J.P.M.</creator><creator>Rutjes, A.W.S.</creator><creator>Reitsma, J.B.</creator><creator>Bossuyt, P.M.M.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060301</creationdate><title>Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies</title><author>Leeflang, M.M.G. ; Scholten, R.J.P.M. ; Rutjes, A.W.S. ; Reitsma, J.B. ; Bossuyt, P.M.M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-84f41e48ecdc1b20e88b44c8dc24ba2a15885e3c5f39e7c49dca62ebe776ac423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Databases, Bibliographic</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnostic Errors</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine - methods</topic><topic>Filters</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information storage and retrieval</topic><topic>Information Storage and Retrieval - methods</topic><topic>Information Storage and Retrieval - standards</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>MEDLINE</topic><topic>Meta-Analysis as Topic</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>PubMed</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Subject Headings</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Leeflang, M.M.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scholten, R.J.P.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutjes, A.W.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reitsma, J.B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bossuyt, P.M.M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Leeflang, M.M.G.</au><au>Scholten, R.J.P.M.</au><au>Rutjes, A.W.S.</au><au>Reitsma, J.B.</au><au>Bossuyt, P.M.M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2006-03-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>59</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>234</spage><epage>240</epage><pages>234-240</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>To determine the usefulness of methodological filters in search strategies for diagnostic studies in systematic reviews.
We made an inventory of existing methodological search filters for diagnostic accuracy studies and applied them in PubMed to a reference set derived from 27 published systematic reviews in a broad range of clinical fields. Outcome measures were the fraction of not identified relevant studies and the reduction in the number of studies to read.
We tested 12 search filters. Of the studies included in the systematic reviews, 2%–28% did not pass the sensitive search filters, 4%–24% did not pass the accurate filters, and 39%–42% did not pass the specific filters. Decrease in number-needed-to-read when a search filter was used in a search strategy for a diagnostic systematic review varied from 0% to 77%.
The use of methodological filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to omission of a considerable number of relevant studies that would otherwise be included. When preparing a systematic review, it may be preferable to avoid using methodological filters.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>16488353</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.014</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2006-03, Vol.59 (3), p.234-240 |
issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67671198 |
source | ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024 |
subjects | Accuracy Biological and medical sciences Biomedical Research Databases, Bibliographic Diagnosis Diagnostic Errors Epidemiology Evidence-based medicine Evidence-Based Medicine - methods Filters General aspects Human Humans Information storage and retrieval Information Storage and Retrieval - methods Information Storage and Retrieval - standards Medical sciences MEDLINE Meta-Analysis as Topic Methodology Prostate cancer Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine PubMed Sensitivity and Specificity Subject Headings |
title | Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T15%3A43%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Use%20of%20methodological%20search%20filters%20to%20identify%20diagnostic%20accuracy%20studies%20can%20lead%20to%20the%20omission%20of%20relevant%20studies&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Leeflang,%20M.M.G.&rft.date=2006-03-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=234&rft.epage=240&rft.pages=234-240&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.014&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2734470721%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-84f41e48ecdc1b20e88b44c8dc24ba2a15885e3c5f39e7c49dca62ebe776ac423%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1033184324&rft_id=info:pmid/16488353&rfr_iscdi=true |