Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed (original) (raw)
Related papers
Handsearching the EMHJ for reports of randomized controlled trials by U.K. Cochrane Centre (Bahrain)
Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de santé de la Méditerranée orientale = al-Majallah al-ṣiḥḥīyah li-sharq al-mutawassiṭ, 2006
This study used handsearching to find reports of randomized controlled trials in the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal (EMHJ). EMBASE and MEDLINE were also searched electronically to identify if the reports found by the handsearch were already included in either of these databases. Nine reports were identified: 7 randomized controlled trials and 2 controlled clinical trials. The added value of the handsearch over EMBASE was 6 additional reports and over MEDLINE was 4. Reports identified were sent to the UK Cochrane Centre for verification and publication in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).
How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on
Journal of the Medical Library Association Jmla, 2006
OBJECTIVE: The researchers sought to assess whether the widely used 1994 Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE could be improved in terms of sensitivity, precision, or parsimony.METHODS: A gold standard of 1,347 RCT records and a comparison group of 2,400 non-trials were randomly selected from MEDLINE. Terms occurring in at least 1% of RCT records were identified. Fifty percent of the RCT and comparison group records were randomly selected, and the ability of the terms to discriminate RCTs from non-trial records was determined using logistic regression. The best performing combinations of terms were tested on the remaining records and in MEDLINE.RESULTS: The best discriminating term was "Clinical Trial" (Publication Type). In years where the Cochrane assessment of MEDLINE records had taken place, the strategies identified few additional unindexed records of trials. In years where Cochrane assessment has yet to take place, "Randomized Controlled Trial" (Publication Type) proved highly sensitive and precise. Adding six more search terms identified further, unindexed trials at reasonable levels of precision and with sensitivity almost equal to the Cochrane HSSS.CONCLUSIONS: Most reports of RCTs in MEDLINE can now be identified easily using "Randomized Controlled Trial" (Publication Type). More sensitive searches can be achieved by a brief strategy, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination/Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (2005 revision).
Systematic Reviews, 2013
The Cochrane Collaboration was established in 1993, following the opening of the UK Cochrane Centre in 1992, at a time when searching for studies for inclusion in systematic reviews was not well-developed. Review authors largely conducted their own searches or depended on medical librarians, who often possessed limited awareness and experience of systematic reviews. Guidance on the conduct and reporting of searches was limited. When work began to identify reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for inclusion in Cochrane Reviews in 1992, there were only approximately 20,000 reports indexed as RCTs in MEDLINE and none indexed as RCTs in Embase. No search filters had been developed with the aim of identifying all RCTs in MEDLINE or other major databases. This presented The Cochrane Collaboration with a considerable challenge in identifying relevant studies. Over time, the number of studies indexed as RCTs in the major databases has grown considerably and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) has become the best single source of published controlled trials, with approximately 700,000 records, including records identified by the Collaboration from Embase and MEDLINE. Search filters for various study types, including systematic reviews and the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategies for RCTs, have been developed. There have been considerable advances in the evidence base for methodological aspects of information retrieval. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions now provides detailed guidance on the conduct and reporting of searches. Initiatives across The Cochrane Collaboration to improve the quality inter alia of information retrieval include: the recently introduced Methodological Expectations for Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) programme, which stipulates 'mandatory' and 'highly desirable' standards for various aspects of review conduct and reporting including searching, the development of Standard Training Materials for Cochrane Reviews and work on peer review of electronic search strategies. Almost all Cochrane Review Groups and some Cochrane Centres and Fields now have a Trials Search Coordinator responsible for study identification and medical librarians and other information specialists are increasingly experienced in searching for studies for systematic reviews. Prospective registration of clinical trials is increasing and searching trials registers is now mandatory for Cochrane Reviews, where relevant. Portals such as the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) are likely to become increasingly attractive, given concerns about the number of trials which may not be registered and/or published. The importance of access to information from regulatory and reimbursement agencies is likely to increase. Cross-database searching, gateways or portals and improved access to full-text databases will impact on how searches are conducted and reported, as will services such as Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Technologies such as textual analysis, semantic analysis, text mining and data linkage will have a major impact on the search process but efficient and effective updating of reviews may remain a challenge.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2007
Objective Scientific and ethical justification for new clinical trials requires them to have been designed in the light of scientifically defensible assessments of relevant previous research. Reliable interpretation of the results of new clinical trials entails setting them in the context of updates of the reviews upon which they were deemed scientifically and ethically justifiable. We have shown previously that most reports of randomized trials published in five general medical journals in May 1997 and in May 2001 failed to set their results in the context of the findings from similar research. In the current study, we assess whether there had been progress in this respect in 2005 and also investigate the extent to which reports begin by referring to systematic reviews providing the justification for the new research reported. Design Assessment of the Introduction and Discussion sections in all reports of randomized trials published during May 2005 in five general medical journals. Setting Reports of randomized trials in five general medical journals.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2020
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2018
Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)...
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Background: While conducting systemic reviews, searching for ongoing or unpublished trials is critical to address publication bias. As of April 2019, records of ongoing or unpublished randomized and/or quasi-randomized controlled trials registered in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov are available in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). These records registered in CENTRAL include studies published since the inception of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Whether systematic reviewers can search CENTRAL to identify ongoing or unpublished trials instead of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov is unknown. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. A consecutive sample of ongoing or unpublished studies published from June 1, 2019 to December 27, 2019 was selected from the Cochrane Reviews. The sensitivity and the number needed to read (NNR) were assessed from among the studies selected from CENT RAL instead of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov and also assessed the characteristics of studies not identified by searching CENTRAL. Results: In total, 247 records from 50 Cochrane reviews were included; of these, 200 were identified by searching CENTRAL, whereas the remaining 47 records were not. The sensitivity of searching CENTRAL was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.85). The NNR was 115 (95% CI: 101, 133). The 47 unidentified studies were registered through ClinicalTrials.gov or ICTRP. Sixteen unidentified studies were not indexed in CENTRAL. Conclusions: For systematic reviewers, searching CENTRAL could not substitute for searching ClinicalTrials.gov and/ or ICTRP. Systematic reviewers should not only search CENTRAL but also ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished trials.
Optimizing search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2006
The Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS), which contains three phases, is widely used to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE. Lefebvre and Clarke suggest that reviewers might consider using four revisions of the HSSS. The objective of this study is to validate these four revisions: combining the free text terms volunteer, crossover, versus, and the Medical Subject Heading CROSS-OVER STUDIES with the top two phases of the HSSS, respectively.