Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. Optimal search...
  3. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey
Papers

Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey

BMJ 2005; 330 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38446.498542.8F (Published 19 May 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:1179
  1. R Brian Haynes, chief (bhaynes{at}mcmaster.ca)1,
  2. K Ann McKibbon, doctoral candidate4,
  3. Nancy L Wilczynski, doctoral candidate2,
  4. Stephen D Walter, professor3,
  5. Stephen R Werre, research associate1 for the Hedges Team
  1. 1Health Information Research Unit, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8N 3Z5
  2. 2School of Graduate Studies, McMaster University
  3. 3Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University
  4. 4Center for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
  1. Correspondence to: R B Haynes
  • Accepted 31 March 2005

Abstract

Objective To develop and test optimal Medline search strategies for retrieving sound clinical studies on prevention or treatment of health disorders.

Design Analytical survey.

Data sources 161 clinical journals indexed in Medline for the year 2000.

Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy of 4862 unique terms in 18 404 combinations.

Results Only 1587 (24.2%) of 6568 articles on treatment met criteria for testing clinical interventions. Combinations of search terms reached peak sensitivities of 99.3% (95% confidence interval 98.7% to 99.8%) at a specificity of 70.4% (69.8% to 70.9%). Compared with best single terms, best multiple terms increased sensitivity for sound studies by 4.1% (absolute increase), but with substantial loss of specificity (absolute difference 23.7%) when sensitivity was maximised. When terms were combined to maximise specificity, 97.4% (97.3% to 97.6%) was achieved, about the same as that achieved by the best single term (97.6%, 97.4% to 97.7%). The strategies newly reported in this paper outperformed other validated search strategies except for two strategies that had slightly higher specificity (98.1% and 97.6% v 97.4%) but lower sensitivity (42.0% and 92.8% v 93.1%).

Conclusion New empirical search strategies have been validated to optimise retrieval from Medline of articles reporting high quality clinical studies on prevention or treatment of health disorders.

Footnotes

  • Contributors RBH and NLW prepared grant submissions for this project. All authors drafted, commented on, and approved the final manuscript, and supplied intellectual content to the collection and analysis of the data. KAM and NLW participated in the data collection and, with the addition of RBH, were involved in data analysis and staff supervision. RBH is guarantor for the paper.

  • Funding National Institutes of Health (grant RO1 LM06866-01).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethical approval Not required.

  • Accepted 31 March 2005
View Full Text
Back to top