UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, UK.
Lefebvre Associates Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2017 Nov;21(69):1-148. doi: 10.3310/hta21690.
Effective study identification is essential for conducting health research, developing clinical guidance and health policy and supporting health-care decision-making. Methodological search filters (combinations of search terms to capture a specific study design) can assist in searching to achieve this.
This project investigated the methods used to assess the performance of methodological search filters, the information that searchers require when choosing search filters and how that information could be better provided.
Five literature reviews were undertaken in 2010/11: search filter development and testing; comparison of search filters; decision-making in choosing search filters; diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study methods; and decision-making in choosing diagnostic tests. We conducted interviews and a questionnaire with experienced searchers to learn what information assists in the choice of search filters and how filters are used. These investigations informed the development of various approaches to gathering and reporting search filter performance data. We acknowledge that there has been a regrettable delay between carrying out the project, including the searches, and the publication of this report, because of serious illness of the principal investigator.
The development of filters most frequently involved using a reference standard derived from hand-searching journals. Most filters were validated internally only. Reporting of methods was generally poor. Sensitivity, precision and specificity were the most commonly reported performance measures and were presented in tables. Aspects of DTA study methods are applicable to search filters, particularly in the development of the reference standard. There is limited evidence on how clinicians choose between diagnostic tests. No published literature was found on how searchers select filters. Interviewing and questioning searchers via a questionnaire found that filters were not appropriate for all tasks but were predominantly used to reduce large numbers of retrieved records and to introduce focus. The Inter Technology Appraisal Support Collaboration (InterTASC) Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG) Search Filters Resource was most frequently mentioned by both groups as the resource consulted to select a filter. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review filters, in particular the Cochrane RCT and the McMaster Hedges filters, were most frequently mentioned. The majority indicated that they used different filters depending on the requirement for sensitivity or precision. Over half of the respondents used the filters available in databases. Interviewees used various approaches when using and adapting search filters. Respondents suggested that the main factors that would make choosing a filter easier were the availability of critical appraisals and more detailed performance information. Provenance and having the filter available in a central storage location were also important.
The questionnaire could have been shorter and could have included more multiple choice questions, and the reviews of filter performance focused on only four study designs.
Search filter studies should use a representative reference standard and explicitly report methods and results. Performance measures should be presented systematically and clearly. Searchers find filters useful in certain circumstances but expressed a need for more user-friendly performance information to aid filter choice. We suggest approaches to use, adapt and report search filter performance. Future work could include research around search filters and performance measures for study designs not addressed here, exploration of alternative methods of displaying performance results and numerical synthesis of performance comparison results.
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and Medical Research Council-NIHR Methodology Research Programme (grant number G0901496).
有效的研究识别对于进行健康研究、制定临床指南和卫生政策以及支持医疗保健决策至关重要。方法学搜索过滤器(捕捉特定研究设计的搜索词组合)可以帮助进行搜索以实现这一目标。
本项目研究了评估方法学搜索过滤器性能的方法、搜索者在选择搜索过滤器时需要的信息以及如何更好地提供这些信息。
2010/11 年进行了五项文献综述:搜索过滤器的开发和测试;搜索过滤器的比较;选择搜索过滤器的决策;诊断测试准确性(DTA)研究方法;以及选择诊断测试的决策。我们对经验丰富的搜索者进行了访谈和问卷调查,以了解哪些信息有助于选择搜索过滤器以及过滤器的使用方式。这些调查为收集和报告搜索过滤器性能数据的各种方法提供了信息。我们承认,由于主要研究者患病严重,在进行项目(包括搜索)和报告本报告之间,出现了令人遗憾的延迟。
过滤器的开发最常涉及使用源自手动搜索期刊的参考标准。大多数过滤器仅在内部进行验证。方法的报告通常很差。灵敏度、精度和特异性是最常报告的性能指标,并以表格形式呈现。DTA 研究方法的某些方面适用于搜索过滤器,特别是在参考标准的制定方面。关于临床医生如何在诊断测试之间进行选择的证据有限。未发现有关搜索者如何选择过滤器的已发表文献。通过问卷对搜索者进行访谈和提问发现,过滤器并不适用于所有任务,但主要用于减少检索到的记录数量并引入重点。两组人员都最常提到 Inter Technology Appraisal Support Collaboration (InterTASC) Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG) Search Filters 资源,作为选择过滤器时咨询的资源。随机对照试验(RCT)和系统评价过滤器,特别是 Cochrane RCT 和 McMaster Hedges 过滤器,最常被提及。大多数人表示,他们根据对灵敏度或精度的要求使用不同的过滤器。超过一半的受访者使用数据库中提供的过滤器。受访者在使用和调整搜索过滤器时采用了各种方法。受访者表示,选择过滤器更容易的主要因素是有批判性评估和更详细的性能信息。出处和在中央存储位置提供过滤器也很重要。
问卷可以更短,可以包含更多的多项选择题,并且对过滤器性能的综述仅集中在四种研究设计上。
搜索过滤器研究应使用代表性参考标准,并明确报告方法和结果。性能指标应系统而清晰地呈现。搜索者在某些情况下发现过滤器很有用,但表示需要更易于使用的性能信息来帮助选择过滤器。我们建议使用、调整和报告搜索过滤器性能的方法。未来的工作可以包括针对此处未涉及的研究设计的搜索过滤器和性能衡量标准的研究、探索替代显示性能结果的方法以及对性能比较结果的数值综合。
英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)健康技术评估计划和医学研究理事会-NIHR 方法论研究计划(赠款号 G0901496)。