Cargando…

Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND: Clinicians perform searches in PubMed daily, but retrieving relevant studies is challenging due to the rapid expansion of medical knowledge. Little is known about the performance of search strategies when they are applied to answer specific clinical questions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agoritsas, Thomas, Merglen, Arnaud, Courvoisier, Delphine S, Combescure, Christophe, Garin, Nicolas, Perrier, Arnaud, Perneger, Thomas V
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Gunther Eysenbach 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3414859/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22693047
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2021
_version_ 1782240272643522560
author Agoritsas, Thomas
Merglen, Arnaud
Courvoisier, Delphine S
Combescure, Christophe
Garin, Nicolas
Perrier, Arnaud
Perneger, Thomas V
author_facet Agoritsas, Thomas
Merglen, Arnaud
Courvoisier, Delphine S
Combescure, Christophe
Garin, Nicolas
Perrier, Arnaud
Perneger, Thomas V
author_sort Agoritsas, Thomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinicians perform searches in PubMed daily, but retrieving relevant studies is challenging due to the rapid expansion of medical knowledge. Little is known about the performance of search strategies when they are applied to answer specific clinical questions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of 15 PubMed search strategies in retrieving relevant clinical trials on therapeutic interventions. METHODS: We used Cochrane systematic reviews to identify relevant trials for 30 clinical questions. Search terms were extracted from the abstract using a predefined procedure based on the population, interventions, comparison, outcomes (PICO) framework and combined into queries. We tested 15 search strategies that varied in their query (PIC or PICO), use of PubMed’s Clinical Queries therapeutic filters (broad or narrow), search limits, and PubMed links to related articles. We assessed sensitivity (recall) and positive predictive value (precision) of each strategy on the first 2 PubMed pages (40 articles) and on the complete search output. RESULTS: The performance of the search strategies varied widely according to the clinical question. Unfiltered searches and those using the broad filter of Clinical Queries produced large outputs and retrieved few relevant articles within the first 2 pages, resulting in a median sensitivity of only 10%–25%. In contrast, all searches using the narrow filter performed significantly better, with a median sensitivity of about 50% (all P < .001 compared with unfiltered queries) and positive predictive values of 20%–30% (P < .001 compared with unfiltered queries). This benefit was consistent for most clinical questions. Searches based on related articles retrieved about a third of the relevant studies. CONCLUSIONS: The Clinical Queries narrow filter, along with well-formulated queries based on the PICO framework, provided the greatest aid in retrieving relevant clinical trials within the 2 first PubMed pages. These results can help clinicians apply effective strategies to answer their questions at the point of care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3414859
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Gunther Eysenbach
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34148592012-08-10 Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews Agoritsas, Thomas Merglen, Arnaud Courvoisier, Delphine S Combescure, Christophe Garin, Nicolas Perrier, Arnaud Perneger, Thomas V J Med Internet Res Original Paper BACKGROUND: Clinicians perform searches in PubMed daily, but retrieving relevant studies is challenging due to the rapid expansion of medical knowledge. Little is known about the performance of search strategies when they are applied to answer specific clinical questions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of 15 PubMed search strategies in retrieving relevant clinical trials on therapeutic interventions. METHODS: We used Cochrane systematic reviews to identify relevant trials for 30 clinical questions. Search terms were extracted from the abstract using a predefined procedure based on the population, interventions, comparison, outcomes (PICO) framework and combined into queries. We tested 15 search strategies that varied in their query (PIC or PICO), use of PubMed’s Clinical Queries therapeutic filters (broad or narrow), search limits, and PubMed links to related articles. We assessed sensitivity (recall) and positive predictive value (precision) of each strategy on the first 2 PubMed pages (40 articles) and on the complete search output. RESULTS: The performance of the search strategies varied widely according to the clinical question. Unfiltered searches and those using the broad filter of Clinical Queries produced large outputs and retrieved few relevant articles within the first 2 pages, resulting in a median sensitivity of only 10%–25%. In contrast, all searches using the narrow filter performed significantly better, with a median sensitivity of about 50% (all P < .001 compared with unfiltered queries) and positive predictive values of 20%–30% (P < .001 compared with unfiltered queries). This benefit was consistent for most clinical questions. Searches based on related articles retrieved about a third of the relevant studies. CONCLUSIONS: The Clinical Queries narrow filter, along with well-formulated queries based on the PICO framework, provided the greatest aid in retrieving relevant clinical trials within the 2 first PubMed pages. These results can help clinicians apply effective strategies to answer their questions at the point of care. Gunther Eysenbach 2012-06-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3414859/ /pubmed/22693047 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2021 Text en ©Thomas Agoritsas, Arnaud Merglen, Delphine S Courvoisier, Christophe Combescure, Nicolas Garin, Arnaud Perrier, Thomas V Perneger. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 12.06.2012. 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, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Agoritsas, Thomas
Merglen, Arnaud
Courvoisier, Delphine S
Combescure, Christophe
Garin, Nicolas
Perrier, Arnaud
Perneger, Thomas V
Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title_full Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title_fullStr Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title_full_unstemmed Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title_short Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title_sort sensitivity and predictive value of 15 pubmed search strategies to answer clinical questions rated against full systematic reviews
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3414859/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22693047
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2021
work_keys_str_mv AT agoritsasthomas sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT merglenarnaud sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT courvoisierdelphines sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT combescurechristophe sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT garinnicolas sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT perrierarnaud sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT pernegerthomasv sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews