Health Information Research Unit, McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 Sep-Oct;18(5):652-9. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000233. Epub 2011 Jun 15.
Clinical Queries filters were developed to improve the retrieval of high-quality studies in searches on clinical matters. The study objective was to determine the yield of relevant citations and physician satisfaction while searching for diagnostic and treatment studies using the Clinical Queries page of PubMed compared with searching PubMed without these filters.
Forty practicing physicians, presented with standardized treatment and diagnosis questions and one question of their choosing, entered search terms which were processed in a random, blinded fashion through PubMed alone and PubMed Clinical Queries. Participants rated search retrievals for applicability to the question at hand and satisfaction.
For treatment, the primary outcome of retrieval of relevant articles was not significantly different between the groups, but a higher proportion of articles from the Clinical Queries searches met methodologic criteria (p=0.049), and more articles were published in core internal medicine journals (p=0.056). For diagnosis, the filtered results returned more relevant articles (p=0.031) and fewer irrelevant articles (overall retrieval less, p=0.023); participants needed to screen fewer articles before arriving at the first relevant citation (p<0.05). Relevance was also influenced by content terms used by participants in searching. Participants varied greatly in their search performance.
Clinical Queries filtered searches returned more high-quality studies, though the retrieval of relevant articles was only statistically different between the groups for diagnosis questions.
Retrieving clinically important research studies from Medline is a challenging task for physicians. Methodological search filters can improve search retrieval.
临床查询过滤器旨在提高在临床问题检索中获取高质量研究的能力。本研究旨在比较在使用 PubMed 的临床查询页面搜索诊断和治疗研究与不使用这些过滤器搜索 PubMed 时，相关引文的数量和医生的满意度。
40 名执业医师，针对标准化治疗和诊断问题以及他们选择的一个问题，输入搜索词，这些搜索词以随机、盲目的方式通过 PubMed 或 PubMed 临床查询进行处理。参与者对搜索结果的相关性进行评估，并对检索结果的适用性和满意度进行评分。
对于治疗，两组间检索相关文章的主要结果无显著差异，但临床查询搜索的文章中符合方法学标准的比例更高（p=0.049），且更多文章发表在内科核心期刊上（p=0.056）。对于诊断，过滤后的结果返回了更多相关的文章（p=0.031）和更少不相关的文章（总体检索更少，p=0.023）；参与者在搜索时使用的内容术语也会影响相关性。参与者的搜索表现差异很大。
临床查询过滤搜索返回了更多高质量的研究，尽管仅在诊断问题的组间检索中具有统计学差异。
从 Medline 检索临床重要的研究文章对医生来说是一项具有挑战性的任务。方法学搜索过滤器可以提高搜索的检索效果。
