Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

Abstract

Objective: The research investigated whether conducting a supplementary search of PubMed in addition to the main MEDLINE (Ovid) search for a systematic review is worthwhile and to ascertain whether this PubMed search can be conducted quickly and if it retrieves unique, recently published, and ahead-of-print studies that are subsequently considered for inclusion in the final systematic review. Methods: Searches of PubMed were conducted after MEDLINE (Ovid) and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid) searches had been completed for seven recent reviews. The searches were limited to records not in MEDLINE or MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid). Results: Additional unique records were identified for all of the investigated reviews. Search strategies were adapted quickly to run in PubMed, and reviewer screening of the results was not time consuming. For each of the investigated reviews, studies were ordered for full screening; in six cases, studies retrieved from the supplementary PubMed searches were included in the final systematic review. Conclusion: Supplementary searching of PubMed for studies unavailable elsewhere is worthwhile and improves the currency of the systematic reviews. When conducting comprehensive literature searches for systematic reviews of health care interventions, searchers almost always include one bibliographic database, MEDLINE. MEDLINE content can be searched via several search interfaces, the majority of which are provided by fee-based subscription services (e.g., Ovid, EBSCO, or ProQuest), although it can be accessed for free using PubMed. When searching for systematic reviews, PubMed has been shown to have a higher retrieval rate than fee-based versions of MEDLINE, such as Ovid [1]. PubMed enables users to search MEDLINE, PubMed citations that will never be indexed on MEDLINE, and other sources, such as online books. Despite this and the fact that PubMed is freely available, many information specialists prefer to search using sophisticated interfaces (usually fee-based) that enable the design of complex search strategies. PubMed has relatively limited search capabilities. For example, proximity searching is not possible and truncation is limited to the first 600 variations. The lack of proximity search operators can be a significant hindrance when attempting to conduct searches for systematic reviews in PubMed, as phrase searching or use of the Boolean ''AND'' to combine terms are the only alternatives. This can produce a search strategy that is either too precise when using phrases or too sensitive when using the Boolean ''AND.'' Searching MEDLINE via more sophisticated interfaces enables much greater flexibility when conducting searches for systematic reviews, allowing information specialists to find a better balance between precision and sensitivity that is not possible in PubMed. Migration of records from PubMed into fee-based subscription services is usually quite timely. Studies indicate that indexed MEDLINE records and

Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapy in Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Studies

“…No language or study design limits were applied. A simple PubMed search was then run against the PubMed subsets pubstatusaheadofprint, publisher, and pubmednotmedline to find material unlikely to be included in other sources . The search strategies are presented in Supporting Information Appendix 1.…”

Design and implementation of a tool for conversion of search strategies between PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE

“…PubMed and Ovid are the two most popular interfaces for accessing the MEDLINE database, and most researchers utilise one of the two on a regular basis . Several recent publications have evaluated the potential benefits and methods of searching both Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed for systematic reviews . In particular, there have been reports that there is a unique content contained in PubMed that is not in the Ovid MEDLINE interface; however, many expert searchers prefer to use the Ovid MEDLINE interface for its extended search capabilities, potentially missing relevant citations in their searches that may only be in the PubMed interface.…”

“…Both PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE search the MEDLINE database; however, there are differences in syntax and retrieval between the two . Variances between use of Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed in systematic reviews have caused differences in citation retrieval, errors in search translation, and changed the number of included articles in systematic reviews . Despite the fact that errors are commonly made when translating between these two interfaces, there is currently no resource that provides this information in one place.…”

Importance and methods of searching for E-publications ahead of print in systematic reviews

“…In 2014, Duffy et al carried out a study to determine whether searching PubMed in addition to MEDLINE was a worthwhile to a systematic review. In both examples used, approximately 60% of studies that were not available in MEDLINE but were available on PubMed were E-publications ahead of print 4. Therefore, by only searching the conventional databases when conducting a systematic review, there is an increasing risk that relevant publications that have appeared in the public domain will be missed.…”