Improving Search Strategies for Randomized Controlled Trials in MEDLINE
Author Information
Author(s): Zhang Li, Ajiferuke Isola, Sampson Margaret
Primary Institution: University of Saskatchewan
Hypothesis
Can the addition of specific search terms improve the identification of randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE?
Conclusion
Adding the term 'versus' to the top two phases of the Highly Sensitive Search Strategy improves the balance of sensitivity and precision in identifying relevant studies.
Supporting Evidence
- The study found that using 'versus' improved the identification of relevant studies slightly.
- Using all three phases of the Highly Sensitive Search Strategy retrieved more relevant articles than using just the top two phases.
- The median number of included studies per review was 12.
- Overall sensitivity for the proposed search strategies was very high, with a median of 100%.
Takeaway
This study looked at how to find more relevant medical studies using better search terms, and found that using 'versus' helps a little bit.
Methodology
The study replicated subject searches for 61 Cochrane reviews and tested six search strategies to calculate sensitivity and precision.
Potential Biases
Missing relevant studies may result in bias in systematic reviews.
Limitations
The study only tested how many included studies could be retrieved, not whether missing studies would change review outcomes.
Participant Demographics
The reviews included studies from various medical fields, primarily focusing on treatment.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.01
Statistical Significance
p<0.01
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website