Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Feb 24:6:7.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-7.

Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study

Affiliations

Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study

Margaret Sampson et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Most electronic search efforts directed at identifying primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews rely on the optimal Boolean search features of search interfaces such as DIALOG and Ovid. Our objective is to test the ability of an Ultraseek search engine to rank MEDLINE records of the included studies of Cochrane reviews within the top half of all the records retrieved by the Boolean MEDLINE search used by the reviewers.

Methods: Collections were created using the MEDLINE bibliographic records of included and excluded studies listed in the review and all records retrieved by the MEDLINE search. Records were converted to individual HTML files. Collections of records were indexed and searched through a statistical search engine, Ultraseek, using review-specific search terms. Our data sources, systematic reviews published in the Cochrane library, were included if they reported using at least one phase of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS), provided citations for both included and excluded studies and conducted a meta-analysis using a binary outcome measure. Reviews were selected if they yielded between 1000-6000 records when the MEDLINE search strategy was replicated.

Results: Nine Cochrane reviews were included. Included studies within the Cochrane reviews were found within the first 500 retrieved studies more often than would be expected by chance. Across all reviews, recall of included studies into the top 500 was 0.70. There was no statistically significant difference in ranking when comparing included studies with just the subset of excluded studies listed as excluded in the published review.

Conclusion: The relevance ranking provided by the search engine was better than expected by chance and shows promise for the preliminary evaluation of large results from Boolean searches. A statistical search engine does not appear to be able to make fine discriminations concerning the relevance of bibliographic records that have been pre-screened by systematic reviewers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
QUOROM diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The review has 21 included studies. The MEDLINE search retrieved 1486 records. Ultraseek ranked 726 of the records as relevant and displayed the 500 with highest relevance scores. Inclusion status (1 = not included, 2 = included) is indicated, followed by the relevance score. The positions of records of included studies are highlighted.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Royle P, Waugh N. Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–64. - PubMed
    1. Wallace S, Daly C, Campbell M, Cody J, Grant A, Vale L, Donaldson C, Khan I, Lawrence P, MacLeod A. After MEDLINE? Dividend from other potential sources of randomised controlled trials [abstract] 2nd International Conference, Scientific Basis of Health Services & 5th Annual Cochrane Colloquium, Amsterdam, October. 1997.
    1. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. A high-yield strategy to identify randomized controlled trials for systematic reviews. Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials. 1993;Doc No 33:3973. - PubMed
    1. Farriol M, Jorda-Olives M, Padro JB. Bibliographic information retrieval in the field of artificial nutrition. Clinical Nutrition. 1998;17:217–222. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5614(98)80062-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:476–487. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00067-2. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources