Leeflang M M G, Scholten R J P M, Rutjes A W S, Reitsma J B, Bossuyt P M M
Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Mar;59(3):234-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.014.
To determine the usefulness of methodological filters in search strategies for diagnostic studies in systematic reviews.
We made an inventory of existing methodological search filters for diagnostic accuracy studies and applied them in PubMed to a reference set derived from 27 published systematic reviews in a broad range of clinical fields. Outcome measures were the fraction of not identified relevant studies and the reduction in the number of studies to read.
We tested 12 search filters. Of the studies included in the systematic reviews, 2%-28% did not pass the sensitive search filters, 4%-24% did not pass the accurate filters, and 39%-42% did not pass the specific filters. Decrease in number-needed-to-read when a search filter was used in a search strategy for a diagnostic systematic review varied from 0% to 77%.
The use of methodological filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to omission of a considerable number of relevant studies that would otherwise be included. When preparing a systematic review, it may be preferable to avoid using methodological filters.
确定方法学筛选器在系统评价中诊断性研究检索策略中的实用性。
我们整理了现有的诊断准确性研究方法学检索筛选器，并将其应用于PubMed中，以检索来自广泛临床领域的27篇已发表系统评价的参考文献集。结果指标为未识别出的相关研究比例以及需阅读的研究数量的减少情况。
我们测试了12个检索筛选器。在系统评价纳入的研究中，2% - 28%未通过敏感性检索筛选器，4% - 24%未通过准确性筛选器，39% - 42%未通过特异性筛选器。在诊断性系统评价的检索策略中使用检索筛选器时，需阅读数量的减少幅度从0%到77%不等。
使用方法学筛选器识别诊断准确性研究可能会导致遗漏大量原本会被纳入的相关研究。在准备系统评价时，最好避免使用方法学筛选器。
