Comparative effectiveness research designs: An analysis of terms and coverage in Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree

Journal of the Medical Library Association

Volumn 101, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 92-100

  Bekhuis, Tanja ^a   Demner Fushman, Dina ^b   Crowley, Rebecca ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LIBRARY; MEDICAL SUBJECT HEADINGS; MEDLINE; NOMENCLATURE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; UNITED STATES; ARTICLE; METHODOLOGY;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL SUBJECT HEADINGS; MEDLINE; NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE (U.S.); TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84877916475     PISSN: 15365050     EISSN: 15589439     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.101.2.004     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. What is comparative effectiveness research [Internet]. The Agency [cited 1 Jun 2012].,http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/what-is-compara tive-effectiveness-research1/.
2. Goodrich K, Auston I, Dunn K, van Horne V, Lang L. Understanding comparative effectiveness research part 1: the controversies and the challenges. MLA News. 2012 Jan;52(1):1-8.
3. Auston I, Dunn K, van Horne V, Goodrich K, Lang L. Understanding comparative effectiveness research part 2: opportunities for health sciences librarians. MLA News. 2012 Apr;52(4):8-9.
4. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jonsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, Sullivan SD. EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 2010 Jun;88(2):256-276.
5. Holve E, Pittman P. A first look at the volume and cost of comparative effectiveness research in the United States. AcademyHealth; Jun 2009.
6. Jurafsky D, Martin JH. Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education; 2009.
7. Harris ZS. The structure of science information. J Biomed Inform. 2002 Aug;35(4):215-221.
8. Grishman R, Kittredge R. Analyzing language in restricted domains: sublanguage description and processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1986.
9. Carini S, Pollock BH, Lehmann HP, Bakken S, Barbour EM, Gabriel D, Hagler HK, Harper CR, Mollah SA, Nahm M, Nguyen HH, Scheuermann RH, Sim I. Development and evaluation of a study design typology for human research. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009 Nov:81-85.
10. Cochrane Collaboration. Methods groups [Internet]. The Collaboration [cited 5 May 2012].,http://www.cochrane.org/contact/methods-groups.
11. Reeves B, Deeks J, Higgins J, Wells G. Chapter 13: Including non-randomized studies. In: Higgins J, Green S,eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester (UK): Wiley; 2008.
12. EQUATOR Network. Library for health research reporting [Internet]. The Network [rev. 13 Mar 2012; cited 5 May 2012].,http://www.equator-network.org/resource -centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/.
13. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003 Jan 4;326(7379):41-44. PMID: 12511463
14. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-357. PMID: 17872937.
15. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening [of] the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-349. PMID: 18313558.
16. Hammond WE, Cimino JJ. Chapter 7: Standards in biomedical informatics. In: Shortliffe EH, Cimino JJ, eds. Biomedical informatics. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2006.
17. US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Medical subject headings [Internet]. The Library [rev. 28 Oct 2011; cited 4 Apr 2012].,http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/.
18. Elsevier. EMTREE: the life science thesaurus [Internet]. [cited 4 Apr 2012].,http://www.embase.com/info/what -is-embase/emtree.
19. Hartling L, Bond K, Harvey K, Santaguida PL, Viswanathan M, Dryden DM. Developing and testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures: University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. AHRQ methods research reports. Rockville, MD: US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010. p. 74.
20. Framework for considering study designs for future research needs (FRN): draft comparative effectiveness review. Rockville, MD: US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. p. 28.
21. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Evidence analysis manual: steps in the academy evidence analysis process [Internet]. Chicago, IL: The Academy; 2012 [cited 3 Apr 2012],http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/topic.cfm?cat51315.
22. US National Library of Medicine. MeSH browser [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: The Library [cited 27 nov 2012],http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/MBrowser.html.
23. Crowlesmith I. Coverage of MEDLINE in Embase [Internet]: Elsevier; May 2011 [cited 8 Apr 2012].,http:// www.pbt.up2els.com/sites/default/files/MEDLINE%20in% 20Embase_Whitepaper_2011_print.12May2011.pdf.
24. Microsoft Office Excel 2003 [computer program]. Redmond, WA.
25. Microsoft Office Excel 2010 [computer program]. Redmond, WA.
26. IBM SPSS statistics, version 20 [computer program]. Armonk, NY.
27. UMLS reference manual [Internet]., Bethesda, MD: US National Library of Medicine; 2009 [cited 8 Apr 2012],http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9676/.
28. National Cancer Institute. NCI thesaurus [Internet]. The Institute [cited 27 Nov 2012].,http://ncit.nci.nih.gov.
29. University of Pittsburgh Health Sciences Library System. MedTerm search assist [Internet]. 2011 [cited 24 May 2012].,http://www.hsls.pitt.edu/terms/.
30. US National Library of Medicine. NLM resources for informing comparative effectiveness [Internet]. The Library; 2009 [rev. 21 Dec 2010; cited 24 May 2012].,http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/cer/cerqueries.html.
31. AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user's guide [Internet]. 2nd ed. The Agency [rev. 3 Mar 2010; cited 27 May 2012].,http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/ search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction5display product&productid5401.
32. Eldredge JD. Inventory of research methods for librar-ianship and informatics. J Med Lib Assoc. 2004 Jan;92(1):83-90.
33. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Glossary of terms [Internet]. The Agency [cited 10 May 2012].,http:// www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm /glossary-of -terms/.
34. Cochrane Collaboration. Glossary [Internet]. The Collaboration [cited 10 May 2012].,http://www.cochrane.org/glossary/.
35. Wilczynski NL, McKibbon KA, Haynes RB. Search filter precision can be improved by NOTing out irrelevant content. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011 Nov:1506-1513.