A prospective comparison of evidence synthesis search strategies developed with and without text-mining tools.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the process of developing searches with and without using text-mining tools (TMTs) for evidence synthesis products.

STUDY DESIGN

This descriptive comparative analysis included seven systematic reviews, classified as simple or complex. Two librarians created MEDLINE strategies for each review, using either usual practice (UP) or TMTs. For each search we calculated sensitivity, number-needed-to-read (NNR) and time spent developing the search strategy.

RESULTS

We found UP searches were more sensitive (UP 92% (95% CI, 85-99); TMT 84.9% (95% CI, 74.4-95.4)), with lower NNR (UP 83 (SD 34); TMT 90 (SD 68)). UP librarians spent an average of 12 h (SD 8) developing search strategies, compared to TMT librarians' 5 hours (SD 2).

CONCLUSION

Across all reviews, TMT searches were less sensitive than UP searches, but confidence intervals overlapped. For simple SR topics, TMT searches were faster and slightly less sensitive than UP. For complex SR topics, TMT searches were faster and less sensitive than UP searches but identified unique eligible citations not found by the UP searches.