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
. 2021 Apr 3;79(1):43.
doi: 10.1186/s13690-021-00560-0.

Validation of a search strategy for randomized clinical trials related to periodontitis

Affiliations

Validation of a search strategy for randomized clinical trials related to periodontitis

Amanda Oliveira Lyrio et al. Arch Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews, considered the gold standard for the assessment of scientific evidence, may present conflicting findings for the same clinical issue, and such dissent may be justified by the forms of elaboration of the electronic search strategy. This paper aims to validate a search strategy to identify randomized clinical trials related to periodontitis. A gold standard reference set was developed to validate the identified clinical trials using the relative recall method. The choice of periodontitis is due to the fact that this disease has a high prevalence among chronic non-communicable diseases, is considered the second most common oral disease in the world, is associated with several health problems, such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, and, principally, has not been investigated sufficiently to prevent possible damages resulting from it.

Methods: A validation study was developed in MEDLINE/PubMed. In Stage 1, a methodological filter recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration to identify randomized clinical trials was applied. Stage 2 identified articles related only to periodontitis (gold standard reference set) from among the articles retrieved using the eligibility criteria. In Stage 3, a search statement for the retrieval of periodontitis-related articles was elaborated by experts. Stage 4 defined the proposed search strategy comprising of the combination of the search statement developed with the aforementioned methodological filter and subsequent application in MEDLINE/PubMed. The obtained data were analyzed using the set of articles identified in Stage 2, as the gold standard reference set. The following performance values were calculated - sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and number needed to read - with their respective 95% confidence interval (95%CI).

Results: The search strategy under evaluation compared to the gold-standard showed a sensitivity of 93.2% (95%CI, 83.8-97.3), specificity of 99.9% (95%CI 99.8-99.9), and a precision of 77.5% (95%CI, 66.48-85.63). In addition, the number needed to read was 1.3.

Conclusion: According to the proposed methodological approach, the search strategy under evaluation performed well in the identification of randomized clinical trials related to periodontitis.

Keywords: Methodological studies; Periodontitis; Research design; Sensitivity; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the procedures for identification of the gold-standard set and the articles retrieved using the search strategy under evaluation

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JP. Meta-research: the art of getting it wrong. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(3–4):169–184. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.19. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):944–952. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jenkins M. Evaluation of methodological search filters--a review. Health Inf Libr J. 2004;21(3):148–163. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2004.00511.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources