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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical epidemiology 2006-03, Vol.59 (3), p.234-240
Main Authors: Leeflang, M.M.G., Scholten, R.J.P.M., Rutjes, A.W.S., Reitsma, J.B., Bossuyt, P.M.M.
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&amp;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 &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; 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