School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;64(6):602-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.006. Epub 2010 Nov 13.
To compare the performance of MEDLINE searches using index test(s) and target condition (subject searches) with the same searches combined with methodological filters for test accuracy studies.
We derived a reference set of 506 test accuracy studies indexed on MEDLINE from seven systematic reviews that conducted extensive searches. We compared the performance of "subject" with "filtered" searches (same searches combined with each of 22 filters). Outcome measures were number of reference set records missed, sensitivity, number needed to read (NNR), and precision (Number of reference set studies identified for every 100 records screened).
Subject searches missed 47 of the 506 reference studies; filtered searches missed an additional 21 to 241 studies. Sensitivity was 91% for subject searches and ranged from 43% to 87% for filtered searches. The NNR was 56 (precision 2%) for subject searches and ranged from 7 to 51 (precision 2-15%) for filtered searches.
Filtered searches miss additional studies compared with searches based on index test and target condition. None of the existing filters provided reductions in the NNR for acceptable sensitivity; currently available methodological filters should not be used to identify studies for inclusion in test accuracy reviews.
比较使用索引测试（s）和目标条件（主题搜索）的 MEDLINE 搜索与结合方法学过滤器的相同搜索在进行测试准确性研究方面的性能。
我们从七个系统评价中得出了一个包含 506 项测试准确性研究的参考集，这些研究都在 MEDLINE 上进行了广泛的搜索。我们比较了“主题”与“过滤”搜索（相同的搜索与 22 个过滤器中的每一个结合）的性能。结果衡量标准为参考集记录遗漏数量、敏感性、需要阅读的数量（NNR）以及精度（每筛选 100 个记录可识别的参考集研究数量）。
主题搜索遗漏了 506 个参考研究中的 47 个；过滤搜索额外遗漏了 21 到 241 个研究。主题搜索的敏感性为 91%，过滤搜索的敏感性范围为 43%至 87%。主题搜索的 NNR 为 56（精度为 2%），过滤搜索的 NNR 范围为 7 至 51（精度为 2-15%）。
与基于索引测试和目标条件的搜索相比，过滤搜索会遗漏更多的研究。目前尚无任何一种过滤器可在保持较高敏感性的情况下降低 NNR；因此，目前尚不能使用现有的方法学过滤器来识别测试准确性研究以进行纳入。
