Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore 21201.
BMJ. 1994 Nov 12;309(6964):1286-91. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286.
To examine the sensitivity and precision of Medline searching for randomised clinical trials.
Comparison of results of Medline searches to a "gold standard" of known randomised clinical trials in ophthalmology published in 1988; systematic review (meta-analysis) of results of similar, but separate, studies from many fields of medicine.
Randomised clinical trials published in 1988 in journals indexed in Medline, and those not indexed in Medline and identified by hand search, comprised the gold standard. Gold standards for the other studies combined in the meta-analysis were based on: randomised clinical trials published in any journal, whether indexed in Medline or not; those published in any journal indexed in Medline; or those published in a selected group of journals indexed in Medline.
Sensitivity (proportion of the total number of known randomised clinical trials identified by the search) and precision (proportion of publications retrieved by Medline that were actually randomised clinical trials) were calculated for each study and combined to obtain weighted means. Searches producing the "best" sensitivity were used for sensitivity and precision estimates when multiple searches were performed.
The sensitivity of searching for ophthalmology randomised clinical trials published in 1988 was 82%, when the gold standard was for any journal, 87% for any journal indexed in Medline, and 88% for selected journals indexed in Medline. Weighted means for sensitivity across all studies were 51%, 77%, and 63%, respectively. The weighted mean for precision was 8% (median 32.5%). Most searchers seemed not to use freetext subject terms and truncation of those terms.
Although the indexing terms available for searching Medline for randomised clinical trials have improved, sensitivity still remains unsatisfactory. A mechanism is needed to "'register" known trials, preferably by retrospective tagging of Medline entries, and incorporating trials published before 1966 and in journals not indexed by Medline into the system.
检验医学文献数据库(Medline)检索随机临床试验的敏感性和精确性。
将Medline检索结果与1988年发表的眼科已知随机临床试验“金标准”进行比较;对来自医学多个领域的类似但独立的研究结果进行系统评价(荟萃分析)。
1988年发表在Medline索引期刊上的随机临床试验,以及未被Medline索引但通过手工检索识别出的随机临床试验,构成金标准。荟萃分析中纳入的其他研究的金标准基于:发表在任何期刊上的随机临床试验,无论是否被Medline索引;发表在Medline索引的任何期刊上的随机临床试验;或发表在Medline索引的一组选定期刊上的随机临床试验。
计算每项研究的敏感性(检索识别出的已知随机临床试验总数的比例)和精确性(Medline检索出的实际为随机临床试验的出版物比例),并合并以获得加权均值。当进行多次检索时,使用产生“最佳”敏感性的检索进行敏感性和精确性估计。
当金标准为任何期刊时,检索1988年发表的眼科随机临床试验的敏感性为82%,为Medline索引期刊时为该87%,为Medline索引选定期刊时为88%。所有研究的敏感性加权均值分别为51%、77%和63%。精确性加权均值为8%(中位数为32.5%)。大多数检索者似乎未使用自由文本主题词及其截断形式。
尽管用于在Medline中检索随机临床试验的索引词有所改进,但敏感性仍不尽人意。需要一种机制来“登记”已知试验,最好通过对Medline条目进行追溯标记,并将196年以前发表的试验以及未被Medline索引的期刊上发表的试验纳入该系统。