The efficiency of database searches for creating systematic reviews was improved by search filters

Publication date: Available online 27 November 2017
Source:Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Author(s): Dalton Budhram, Tamara Navarro-Ruan, R Brian Haynes
ObjectiveTo compare Clinical Queries (CQs) for randomized trials of therapy 'methods' and 'NOT' limits search filters with Cochrane methods filters (CSs).Study Design and SettingAnalytic survey of Cochrane reviews as the reference standard for retrieving studies included in the reviews ('included studies'). The sensitivity and precision of Cochrane content terms + Cochrane methods terms were compared in MEDLINE and Embase with Cochrane content terms + Clinical Queries maximally sensitive filter for therapy studies, without and with additional 'NOT' limits (CQ-S; CQ-S + limits) and a balanced filter without and with additional NOT limits (CQ-B; CQ-B + limits).ResultsCochrane or CQ methods terms reduced, by 64% to 96%, the overall retrieval of articles with minimal loss of included studies. Sensitivity was high and similar for the 4 filters. However, CQ-B + limits had the highest precision (2.64%, number needed to be read to find one eligible study (NNR) 38) followed by the CQ-B (1.05%, NNR 95), CS (0.51%, NNR 198), CQ-S + limits (0.34%, NNR 296), and CQ-S filters (0.31%, NNR 325).ConclusionsFor systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions, the efficiency of searches in MEDLINE and Embase was better served by he Clinical Queries for therapy studies with balanced methods filter and NOT limits.



from ! ORL Sfakianakis via paythelady.61 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2AcVdFF
via IFTTT