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
. 2006 Aug 18:6:41.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-41.

Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE

Cynthia Fraser  1 , Alison Murray, Jennifer Burr
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE

Cynthia Fraser et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Health technology assessments of surgical interventions frequently require the inclusion of non-randomised evidence. Literature search strategies employed to identify this evidence often exclude a methodological component because of uncertainty surrounding the use of appropriate search terms. This can result in the retrieval of a large number of irrelevant records. Methodological filters would help to minimise this, making literature searching more efficient.

Methods: An objective approach was employed to develop MEDLINE and EMBASE filters, using a reference standard derived from screening the results of an electronic literature search that contained only subject-related terms. Candidate terms for MEDLINE (N = 37) and EMBASE (N = 35) were derived from examination of the records of the reference standard. The filters were validated on two sets of studies that had been included in previous health technology assessments.

Results: The final filters were highly sensitive (MEDLINE 99.5%, EMBASE 100%, MEDLINE/EMBASE combined 100%) with precision ranging between 16.7%-21.1%, specificity 35.3%-43.5%, and a reduction in retrievals of over 30%. Against the validation standards, the individual filters retrieved 85.2%-100% of records. In combination, however, the MEDLINE and EMBASE filters retrieved 100% against both validation standards with a reduction in retrieved records of 28.4% and 30.1%

Conclusion: The MEDLINE and EMBASE filters were highly sensitive and substantially reduced the number of records retrieved, indicating that they are useful tools for efficient literature searching.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, Garside R, Castelnuovo E, Payne L. Do the findings of case series vary significantly according to methodological characteristics? Health Technol Assess. 2005;9 - PubMed
    1. Jones L, Wilson R, Parry G. New interventional procedures: an evaluation of the quality of the evidence. Ital J Public Health. 2005. p. 205.
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso-Stefinovic J. How to identify randomised controlled trial in MEDLINE: ten years on. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94:310–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Walter SD, Were SR, Hedges Team Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. Br Med J. 2005;330:1179. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38446.498542.8F. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Robinson KA, Dickersin K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:150–3. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.1.150. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms