Suppr超能文献

在EMBASE中识别诊断准确性研究。

Identifying diagnostic accuracy studies in EMBASE.

作者信息

Bachmann Lucas M, Estermann Pius, Kronenberg Corinna, ter Riet Gerben

机构信息

Horten Centre, Bolleystrasse 40, Postfach Nord, University of Zürich, CH-8091 Zürich, Switzerland.

出版信息

J Med Libr Assoc. 2003 Jul;91(3):341-6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to develop and test search strategies to identify diagnostic articles recorded on EMBASE.

METHODS

Four general medical journals were hand searched for diagnostic accuracy studies published in 1999. Identified studies served as a gold standard. Candidate terms for search strategies were identified using a word-frequency analysis of their abstracts. According to the frequency of identified terms, searches were run for each term independently. Sensitivity, precision, and number needed to read (NNR) (1/precision) of every candidate term were calculated. Terms with the highest "sensitivity*precision" product were used as free-text terms and combined into a final strategy using the Boolean operator "OR."

RESULTS

The most frequently occurring eight terms (sensitiv* or detect* or accura* or specific* or reliab* or positive or negative or diagnos*) produced a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.1 to 100%) and an NNR of 27 (95% CI 21.0 to 34.8). The combination of the two truncated terms sensitiv* or detect* gave a sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI 60.9 to 84.2%) and an NNR of 5.7 (95% CI 4.4 to 7.6).

CONCLUSIONS

The identified search terms offer the choice of either reasonably sensitive or precise search strategies for the detection of diagnostic accuracy studies in EMBASE. The terms are useful both for busy health care professionals who value precision and for reviewers who value sensitivity.

摘要

目的

旨在开发并测试检索策略,以识别收录于EMBASE数据库中的诊断性文章。

方法

人工检索了四种综合医学期刊,查找1999年发表的诊断准确性研究。所识别出的研究作为金标准。通过对摘要进行词频分析来确定检索策略的候选术语。根据所识别术语的出现频率,对每个术语分别进行检索。计算每个候选术语的敏感度、精准度和阅读需检文献数(NNR)(1/精准度)。将“敏感度*精准度”乘积最高的术语用作自由文本术语,并使用布尔运算符“OR”组合成最终检索策略。

结果

出现频率最高的八个术语(sensitiv* 或 detect* 或 accura* 或 specific* 或 reliab* 或 positive 或 negative 或 diagnos*)的敏感度为100%(95%置信区间[CI] 94.1至100%),阅读需检文献数为27(95%CI 21.0至34.8)。两个截断术语sensitiv* 或 detect* 的组合敏感度为73.8%(95%CI 60.9至84.2%),阅读需检文献数为5.7(95%CI 4.4至7.6)。

结论

所识别出的检索词为在EMBASE中检索诊断准确性研究提供了敏感度合理或精准度高的检索策略选择。这些术语对于重视精准度的忙碌医疗保健专业人员以及重视敏感度的综述人员均有用处。

相似文献

1
Identifying diagnostic accuracy studies in EMBASE.
J Med Libr Assoc. 2003 Jul;91(3):341-6.
3
Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: reducing the number needed to read.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002 Nov-Dec;9(6):653-8. doi: 10.1197/jamia.m1124.
4
Optimal search strategies for detecting cost and economic studies in EMBASE.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Jun 6;6:67. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-67.
6
Optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound prognostic studies in EMBASE: an analytic survey.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 Jul-Aug;12(4):481-5. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1752. Epub 2005 Mar 31.
7
EMBASE search strategies achieved high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving methodologically sound systematic reviews.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):29-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.04.001. Epub 2006 Jul 20.
8
An overview of the design and methods for retrieving high-quality studies for clinical care.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005 Jun 21;5:20. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-5-20.
9
Search Strategy to Identify Dental Survival Analysis Articles Indexed in MEDLINE.
Int J Prosthodont. 2016 Jan-Feb;29(1):20-7. doi: 10.11607/ijp.4304.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessment of the Diagnostic Efficacy of Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Jul 19;14(14):1564. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14141564.
2
Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades.
Syst Rev. 2024 May 2;13(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02531-2.
3
Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018 Feb;403(1):119-129. doi: 10.1007/s00423-017-1646-x. Epub 2017 Dec 5.
5
Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 11;2013(9):MR000022. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000022.pub3.
6
Chapter 4: effective search strategies for systematic reviews of medical tests.
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S28-32. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1873-8.
7
Search terms and a validated brief search filter to retrieve publications on health-related values in Medline: a word frequency analysis study.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 May-Jun;19(3):479-88. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000243. Epub 2011 Aug 16.
8
Tests used to evaluate dizziness in primary care.
CMAJ. 2010 Sep 21;182(13):E621-31. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.080910. Epub 2010 Jul 19.

本文引用的文献

1
Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Jan;53(1):65-9. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00144-4.
3
Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German.
Lancet. 1997 Aug 2;350(9074):326-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02419-7.
4
A high-yield strategy to identify randomized controlled trials for systematic reviews.
Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993 Feb 27;Doc No 33:[3973 words; 39 paragraphs].
5
Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests.
Ann Intern Med. 1994 Apr 15;120(8):667-76. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-120-8-199404150-00008.
7
Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994 Nov-Dec;1(6):447-58. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1994.95153434.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验