Sampson Margaret, McGowan Jessie
Chalmers Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L1, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1057-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.007. Epub 2006 Jun 23.
Errors in the electronic search strategy of a systematic review may undermine the integrity of the evidence base used in the review. We studied the frequency and types of errors in reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration.
Data sources were MEDLINE searches from reviews in the Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2002. To be eligible, systematic reviews must have been of randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, reported included and excluded studies, and used one or more sections of the Cochrane Collaboration's Highly Sensitive Search Strategy. MEDLINE search strategies not reported in enough detail to be assessed or that were duplicates of a search strategy already assessed for the study were excluded. Two librarians assessed eligibility and scored the eligible electronic search strategies for 11 possible errors. Dual review with consensus was used.
Of 105 MEDLINE search strategies examined, 63 were assessed; 31 were excluded because they were inadequately reported, and 11 were duplicates of assessed search strategies. Most (90.5%) of the assessed search strategies contained > or =1 errors (median 2, interquartile range [IQR] 1.0-3.0). Errors that could potentially lower recall of relevant studies were found in 82.5% (median 1, IQR 1.0-2.0) and inconsequential errors (to the evidence base) were found in 60.3% (median 1, IQR 0.0-1.0) of the search strategies. The most common search errors were missed MeSH terms (44.4%), unwarranted explosion of MeSH terms (38.1%), and irrelevant MeSH or free text terms (28.6%). Missed spelling variants, combining MeSH and free text terms in the same line, and failure to tailor the search strategy for other databases occurred with equal frequency (20.6%). Logical operator error occurred in 19.0% of searches.
When the MEDLINE search strategy used in a systematic review is reported in enough detail to allow assessment, errors are commonly revealed. Additional peer review steps are needed to ensure search quality and freedom from errors.
系统评价的电子检索策略中的错误可能会破坏该评价所使用证据库的完整性。我们研究了Cochrane协作网发表的评价中的错误频率和类型。
数据来源为2002年第3期Cochrane图书馆中评价的MEDLINE检索。符合条件的系统评价必须是关于随机或半随机对照试验的，报告纳入和排除的研究，并使用了Cochrane协作网高度敏感检索策略的一个或多个部分。未详细报告以至于无法评估的MEDLINE检索策略，或与该研究已评估的检索策略重复的检索策略被排除。两名图书馆员评估纳入标准，并对符合条件的电子检索策略的11种可能错误进行评分。采用双人审核并达成共识。
在检查的105个MEDLINE检索策略中，63个被评估；31个因报告不充分而被排除，11个是已评估检索策略的重复。大多数（90.5%）被评估的检索策略包含≥1个错误（中位数为2，四分位间距[IQR]为1.0 - 3.0）。在82.5%（中位数为1，IQR为1.0 - 2.0）的检索策略中发现了可能降低相关研究召回率的错误，在60.3%（中位数为1，IQR为0.0 - 1.0）的检索策略中发现了无关紧要的错误（对证据库而言）。最常见的检索错误是遗漏MeSH词（44.4%）、不必要地扩展MeSH词（38.1%）以及不相关的MeSH或自由文本词（28.6%）。遗漏拼写变体、在同一行中组合MeSH和自由文本词以及未针对其他数据库调整检索策略的出现频率相同（20.6%）。逻辑运算符错误出现在19.0%的检索中。
当系统评价中使用的MEDLINE检索策略报告详细到足以进行评估时，通常会发现错误。需要额外的同行评审步骤来确保检索质量并避免错误。
