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
Comparative Study
. 2001 Jul-Aug;8(4):391-7.
doi: 10.1136/jamia.2001.0080391.

Searching for clinical prediction rules in MEDLINE

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Searching for clinical prediction rules in MEDLINE

B J Ingui et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

Objectives: Clinical prediction rules have been advocated as a possible mechanism to enhance clinical judgment in diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic assessment. Despite renewed interest in the their use, inconsistent terminology makes them difficult to index and retrieve by computerized search systems. No validated approaches to locating clinical prediction rules appear in the literature. The objective of this study was to derive and validate an optimal search filter for retrieving clinical prediction rules, using the National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE database.

Design: A comparative, retrospective analysis was conducted. The "gold standard" was established by a manual search of all articles from select print journals for the years 1991 through 1998, which identified articles covering various aspects of clinical prediction rules such as derivation, validation, and evaluation. Search filters were derived, from the articles in the July through December issues of the journals (derivation set), by analyzing the textwords (words in the title and abstract) and the medical subject heading (from the MeSH Thesaurus) used to index each article. The accuracy of these filters in retrieving clinical prediction rules was then assessed using articles in the January through June issues (validation set).

Measurements: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratio of several different search filters were measured.

Results: The filter "predict$ OR clinical$ OR outcome$ OR risk$" retrieved 98 percent of clinical prediction rules. Four filters, such as "predict$ OR validat$ OR rule$ OR predictive value of tests," had both sensitivity and specificity above 90 percent. The top-performing filter for positive predictive value and positive likelihood ratio in the validation set was "predict$.ti. AND rule$."

Conclusions: Several filters with high retrieval value were found. Depending on the goals and time constraints of the searcher, one of these filters could be used.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of derivation and validation phases.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Calculation of performance measures.Sensitivityequals a/(a+c), the proportion of articles with clinical prediction rules that were retrieved by filter. Specificityequals d/(b+d), the proportion of articles without clinical prediction rules that were not retrieved by filter. Positive predictive valueequals a/(a+b), the proportion of retrieved articles that contained clinical prediction rules. Positive likelihood ratio equals (a/[a+c])/(b/[b+d]), the ratio of sensitivity to 1–specificity, which was the proportion of desired articles retrieved compared with the proportion of undesired articles retrieved.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA. 1997;277:488–94. - PubMed
    1. Wasson JH, Sox HC, Neff RK, Goldman L. Clinical prediction rules: applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:793–9. - PubMed
    1. McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC, Naylor CD, Stiell IG, Richardson WS. Users' guides to the medical literature, XXII: How to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284:79–84. - PubMed
    1. Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in medline. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1:447–58. - PMC - PubMed
    1. van der Weijden T, Ijzermans CJ, Dinant GJ, van Duijn NP, de Vet R. Buntinx F. Identifying relevant diagnostic studies in medline. The diagnostic value of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and dipstick as an example. Fam Pract. 1997;14:204–8. - PubMed

Publication types