Cargando…
Development and validation of paired MEDLINE and Embase search filters for cost-utility studies
Search filters are standardised sets of search terms, with validated performance, that are designed to retrieve studies with specific characteristics. A cost–utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred type of economic evaluation to underpin decision-making at the National Institute for Health and Care...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36463100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01796-2 |
_version_ | 1784843277827047424 |
---|---|
author | Hubbard, Wesley Walsh, Nicola Hudson, Thomas Heath, Andrea Dietz, Jeremy Rogers, Gabriel |
author_facet | Hubbard, Wesley Walsh, Nicola Hudson, Thomas Heath, Andrea Dietz, Jeremy Rogers, Gabriel |
author_sort | Hubbard, Wesley |
collection | PubMed |
description | Search filters are standardised sets of search terms, with validated performance, that are designed to retrieve studies with specific characteristics. A cost–utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred type of economic evaluation to underpin decision-making at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Until now, when searching for economic evidence for NICE guidelines, we have used a broad set of health economic-related search terms, even when the reviewer’s interest is confined to CUAs alone. METHODS: We developed search filters to retrieve CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase. Our aim was to achieve recall of 90% or better across both databases while reducing the overall yield compared with our existing broad economic filter. We used the relative recall method along with topic expert input to derive and validate 3 pairs of filters, assessed by their ability to identify a gold-standard set of CUAs that had been used in published NICE guidelines. We developed and validated MEDLINE and Embase filters in pairs (testing whether, when used together, they find target studies in at least 1 database), as this is how they are used in practice. We examined the proxy-precision of our new filters by comparing their overall yield with our previous approach using publications indexed in a randomly selected year (2010). RESULTS: All 3 filter-pairs exceeded our target recall and led to substantial improvements in search proxy-precision. Our paired ‘sensitive’ filters achieved 100% recall (95% CI 99.0 to 100%) in the validation set. Our paired ‘precise’ filters also had very good recall (97.6% [95%CI: 95.4 to 98.9%]). We estimate that, compared with our previous search strategy, using the paired ‘sensitive’ filters would reduce reviewer screening burden by a factor of 5 and the ‘precise’ versions would do so by a factor of more than 20. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the 3 paired cost–utility filters enable the identification of almost all CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase from the validation set, with substantial savings in screening workload compared to our previous search practice. We would encourage other researchers who regularly use multiple databases to consider validating search filters in combination as this will better reflect how they use databases in their everyday work. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01796-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9719242 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97192422022-12-04 Development and validation of paired MEDLINE and Embase search filters for cost-utility studies Hubbard, Wesley Walsh, Nicola Hudson, Thomas Heath, Andrea Dietz, Jeremy Rogers, Gabriel BMC Med Res Methodol Research Search filters are standardised sets of search terms, with validated performance, that are designed to retrieve studies with specific characteristics. A cost–utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred type of economic evaluation to underpin decision-making at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Until now, when searching for economic evidence for NICE guidelines, we have used a broad set of health economic-related search terms, even when the reviewer’s interest is confined to CUAs alone. METHODS: We developed search filters to retrieve CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase. Our aim was to achieve recall of 90% or better across both databases while reducing the overall yield compared with our existing broad economic filter. We used the relative recall method along with topic expert input to derive and validate 3 pairs of filters, assessed by their ability to identify a gold-standard set of CUAs that had been used in published NICE guidelines. We developed and validated MEDLINE and Embase filters in pairs (testing whether, when used together, they find target studies in at least 1 database), as this is how they are used in practice. We examined the proxy-precision of our new filters by comparing their overall yield with our previous approach using publications indexed in a randomly selected year (2010). RESULTS: All 3 filter-pairs exceeded our target recall and led to substantial improvements in search proxy-precision. Our paired ‘sensitive’ filters achieved 100% recall (95% CI 99.0 to 100%) in the validation set. Our paired ‘precise’ filters also had very good recall (97.6% [95%CI: 95.4 to 98.9%]). We estimate that, compared with our previous search strategy, using the paired ‘sensitive’ filters would reduce reviewer screening burden by a factor of 5 and the ‘precise’ versions would do so by a factor of more than 20. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the 3 paired cost–utility filters enable the identification of almost all CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase from the validation set, with substantial savings in screening workload compared to our previous search practice. We would encourage other researchers who regularly use multiple databases to consider validating search filters in combination as this will better reflect how they use databases in their everyday work. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01796-2. BioMed Central 2022-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9719242/ /pubmed/36463100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01796-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Hubbard, Wesley Walsh, Nicola Hudson, Thomas Heath, Andrea Dietz, Jeremy Rogers, Gabriel Development and validation of paired MEDLINE and Embase search filters for cost-utility studies |
title | Development and validation of paired MEDLINE and Embase search filters for cost-utility studies |
title_full | Development and validation of paired MEDLINE and Embase search filters for cost-utility studies |
title_fullStr | Development and validation of paired MEDLINE and Embase search filters for cost-utility studies |
title_full_unstemmed | Development and validation of paired MEDLINE and Embase search filters for cost-utility studies |
title_short | Development and validation of paired MEDLINE and Embase search filters for cost-utility studies |
title_sort | development and validation of paired medline and embase search filters for cost-utility studies |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36463100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01796-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hubbardwesley developmentandvalidationofpairedmedlineandembasesearchfiltersforcostutilitystudies AT walshnicola developmentandvalidationofpairedmedlineandembasesearchfiltersforcostutilitystudies AT hudsonthomas developmentandvalidationofpairedmedlineandembasesearchfiltersforcostutilitystudies AT heathandrea developmentandvalidationofpairedmedlineandembasesearchfiltersforcostutilitystudies AT dietzjeremy developmentandvalidationofpairedmedlineandembasesearchfiltersforcostutilitystudies AT rogersgabriel developmentandvalidationofpairedmedlineandembasesearchfiltersforcostutilitystudies |