Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 119-125

  Sampson, Margaret ^a   Tetzlaff, Jennifer ^b   Urquhart, Christine ^c  

^a CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

healthcare; precision; searches; systematic reviews; typical values

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876914286     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.42     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ananiadou S, Rea B, Okazaki N, Procter R, Thomas J. 2009. Supporting systematic reviews using text mining. Social Science Computer Review 27(4): 509–523.
2. APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. 2008. Reporting standards for research in psychology: why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist 63(9): 839–851.
3. Baeza-Yates R, Ribeiro-Neto B. 1999. Modern Information Retrieval. Addison Wesley: Harlow.
4. Bailey B, Buckley NA, Amre DK. 2004. A meta-analysis of prognostic indicators to predict seizures, arrhythmias or death after tricyclic antidepressant overdose. Journal of Toxicology - Clinical Toxicology 42(6): 877–888.
5. Bekhuis T, mner-Fushman D. 2010. Towards automating the initial screening phase of a systematic review. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 160(Pt 1): 146–150.
6. Betran AP, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM, Allen T, Hampson L. 2005. Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality. BMC Medical Research Methodology 5(1): 6.
7. Booth A. 2006. “Brimful of STARLITE”: toward standards for reporting literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association 94(4): 421.
8. Cohen A, Hersh WR, Peterson K, Yen PY. 2006. Reducing workload in systematic review preparation using automated citation classification. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 13(2): 206–219.
9. Cramer JA. 2004. A systematic review of adherence with medications for diabetes.[see comment]. [Review] [43 refs]. Diabetes Care 27(5): 1218–1224.
10. Day D, Furlan A, Irvin E, Bombardier C. 2005. Simplified search strategies were effective in identifying clinical trials of pharmaceuticals and physical modalities. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 58(9): 874–881.
11. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. 1994. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 309(6964): 1286–1291.
12. Fokkinga WA, Kreulen CM, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH. 2004. A structured analysis of in vitro failure loads and failure modes of fiber, metal, and ceramic post-and-core systems. [Review] [56 refs]. International Journal of Prosthodontics 17(4): 476–482.
13. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso-Stefinovic J. 2006. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on [Erratum in: Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006 Jul;94(3):354]. Journal of the Medical Library Association 94(2): 130–136.
14. Glenny AM, Hooper L, Shaw WC, Reilly S, Kasem S, Reid J. 2004. Feeding interventions for growth and development in infants with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate. [Review] [106 refs]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3): CD003315.
15. Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Cuckle HS. 2001. Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. [Review] [171 refs]. Health Technology Assessment 8(33): iii–iix.
16. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. 2005. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 331(7524): 1064–1065.
17. Gulmezoglu AM, Say L, Betran AP, Villar J, Piaggio G. 2004. WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: methodological issues and challenges. BMC Medical Research Methodology 4: 16.
18. Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC. 1994. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1(6): 447–458.
19. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Walter SD, Werre SR. 2005. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 330(7501): 1179.
20. Hind D, Booth A. 2007. Do health technology assessments comply with QUOROM diagram guidance? An empirical study. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7: 49.
21. Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP. 1998. Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: III. How did the authors synthesize the data and make their conclusions? Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 152(8): 812–817.
22. Jenkins M. 2004. Evaluation of methodological search filters--a review. Health Information and Libraries Journal 21(3): 148–163.
23. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. 2008. Searching for studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Higgins JPT, Green S (eds.), Wiley: Oxford, UK. Available: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
24. McDonald C, Zanelli J, Rabe-Hesketh S, Ellison-Wright I, Sham P, Kalidindi S, Murray RM, Kennedy N. 2004. Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging brain morphometry studies in bipolar disorder. Biological Psychiatry 56(6): 411–417.
25. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. 1999. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 354: 1896–1900.
26. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. 2007. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 4(3): e78.
27. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB. 2005. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 330(7482): 68.
28. Morin KH, Ashton KC. 2004. Research on faculty orientation programs: guidelines and directions for nurse educators. [Review] [53 refs]. Journal of Professional Nursing 20(4): 239–250.
29. Murphy JR. 1983. The relationship of relative risk and positive predictive value in 2 × 2 tables. American Journal of Epidemiology 117(1): 86–89.
30. Nichol G, Huszti E, Rokosh J, Dumbrell A, McGowan J, Becker L. 2004a. Impact of informed consent requirements on cardiac arrest research in the United States: exception from consent or from research? Resuscitation 62(1): 3–23.
31. Nichol G, Huszti E, Rokosh J, Dumbrell A, McGowan J, Becker L. 2004b. Impact of informed consent requirements on cardiac arrest research in the United States: exception from consent or from research? [Review] [297 refs]. Resuscitation 62(1): 3–23.
32. Porta Serra M. 2008. A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
33. Salton G, McGill MJ. 1983. Introduction to modern information retrieval. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
34. Sampson M, McGowan J. 2011. Inquisitio validus Index Medicus: a simple method of validating MEDLINE systematic review searches. Res. Syn. Meth. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.40.
35. Wallace BC, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Brodley CE, Schmid CH. 2010. Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinformatics 11(1): 55.
36. Warner J. 2010. Human information retrieval. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
37. van Weert JM, Repping S, Van Voorhis BJ, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM, Mol BW. 2004. Performance of the postwash total motile sperm count as a predictor of pregnancy at the time of intrauterine insemination: a meta-analysis. Fertility and Sterility 82(3): 612–620.
38. Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, Li Y, Liu Y, Zhou M, Liu P, Ye L, Li Y, Tian W. 2008. The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61(8): 770–775.
39. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. 2003. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound causation studies in MEDLINE. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 719–723.