Cargando…

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

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(®...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sampson, Margaret, Barrowman, Nicholas J, Moher, David, Clifford, Tammy J, Platt, Robert W, Morrison, Andra, Klassen, Terry P, Zhang, Li
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16504110
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-7
_version_ 1782127037423550464
author Sampson, Margaret
Barrowman, Nicholas J
Moher, David
Clifford, Tammy J
Platt, Robert W
Morrison, Andra
Klassen, Terry P
Zhang, Li
author_facet Sampson, Margaret
Barrowman, Nicholas J
Moher, David
Clifford, Tammy J
Platt, Robert W
Morrison, Andra
Klassen, Terry P
Zhang, Li
author_sort Sampson, Margaret
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Text
id pubmed-1403795
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-14037952006-03-18 Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study Sampson, Margaret Barrowman, Nicholas J Moher, David Clifford, Tammy J Platt, Robert W Morrison, Andra Klassen, Terry P Zhang, Li BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2006-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC1403795/ /pubmed/16504110 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-7 Text en Copyright © 2006 Sampson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sampson, Margaret
Barrowman, Nicholas J
Moher, David
Clifford, Tammy J
Platt, Robert W
Morrison, Andra
Klassen, Terry P
Zhang, Li
Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study
title Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study
title_full Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study
title_fullStr Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study
title_full_unstemmed Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study
title_short Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study
title_sort can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16504110
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-7
work_keys_str_mv AT sampsonmargaret canelectronicsearchenginesoptimizescreeningofsearchresultsinsystematicreviewsanempiricalstudy
AT barrowmannicholasj canelectronicsearchenginesoptimizescreeningofsearchresultsinsystematicreviewsanempiricalstudy
AT moherdavid canelectronicsearchenginesoptimizescreeningofsearchresultsinsystematicreviewsanempiricalstudy
AT cliffordtammyj canelectronicsearchenginesoptimizescreeningofsearchresultsinsystematicreviewsanempiricalstudy
AT plattrobertw canelectronicsearchenginesoptimizescreeningofsearchresultsinsystematicreviewsanempiricalstudy
AT morrisonandra canelectronicsearchenginesoptimizescreeningofsearchresultsinsystematicreviewsanempiricalstudy
AT klassenterryp canelectronicsearchenginesoptimizescreeningofsearchresultsinsystematicreviewsanempiricalstudy
AT zhangli canelectronicsearchenginesoptimizescreeningofsearchresultsinsystematicreviewsanempiricalstudy