Search strategies (filters) to identify systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase

• Published in: Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2023-09, Vol.9 (9), p.MR000054
• Main Authors: Escobar Liquitay, Camila Micaela, Garegnani, Luis, Garrote, Virginia, Solà, Ivan, Franco, Juan Va
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Checklist; Databases, Bibliographic; Humans; MEDLINE; Methodology; Systematic Reviews as Topic
• ISSN: 1469-493X; 1469-493X
• DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000054.pub2

Bibliographic databases provide access to an international body of scientific literature in health and medical sciences. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for clinicians, researchers, consumers, and policymakers as they address a specific health-related question and use explicit methods to identify, appraise and synthesize evidence from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. Methodological search filters help database end-users search the literature effectively with different levels of sensitivity and specificity. These filters have been developed for various study designs and have been found to be particularly useful for intervention studies. Other filters have been developed for finding systematic reviews. Considering the variety and number of available search filters for systematic reviews, there is a need for a review of them in order to provide evidence about their retrieval properties at the time they were developed. To review systematically empirical studies that report the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase. We searched the following databases from inception to January 2023: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) and Science Citation Index (Web of Science). We included studies if one of their primary objectives is the development, evaluation, or comparison of a search filter that could be used to retrieve systematic reviews on MEDLINE, Embase, or both. Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-specified and piloted data extraction form using InterTASC Information Specialist Subgroup (ISSG) Search Filter Evaluation Checklist. We identified eight studies that developed filters for MEDLINE and three studies that developed filters for Embase. Most studies are very old and some were limited to systematic reviews in specific clinical areas. Six included studies reported the sensitivity of their developed filter. Seven studies reported precision and six studies reported specificity. Only one study reported the number needed to read and positive predictive value. None of the filters were designed to differentiate systematic reviews on the basis of their methodological quality. For MEDLINE, all filters showed similar sensitivity and precision, and one filter showed higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited study