Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews

Sampson, Margaret; Shojania, Kaveh G; McGowan, Jessie; Daniel, Raymond; Rader, Tamara; Iansavichene, Alla; Ji, Jun; Ansari, Mohammed T; Moher, David

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.003

Cited by 81 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with prior research [7], our findings support the use of literature scanning/surveillance as a practical approach for identifying reviews likely to need updating within short time periods. Findings from this study do not support the use of a consistent a priori time interval for updating all systematic reviews.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence

Peterson¹,

McDonagh²,

Fu³

2011

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence

Peterson¹,

McDonagh²,

Fu³

2011

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The second would be a search using the Related Articles feature with the PubMed IDs (PMIDs) of the three newest and three largest included studies as the seed articles. 5,6 Can searches for updates be limited update by date?…”

Section: Text Word Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literature reviews: Patient-centred care

Yeung

2017

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Comparison of a number of searches, including two tested here, has been previously reported [15]. In this current article, two of the most successful methods in a larger sample of 72 journal-published systematic reviews, clinical query (CQ), and PubMed-related articles are tested in a cohort of six updated Cochrane reviews, as well as in a previously unreported sample of 10 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) evidence reports.…”

Section: What Is the Implication And What Should Change Now?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary approaches to searching MEDLINE may be sufficient for updating systematic reviews

Sampson

Bruijn

Urquhart

et al. 2016

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n'arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team atPublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information. NRC Publications Archive Archives des publications du CNRCThis publication could be one of several versions: author's original, accepted manuscript or the publisher's version. / La version de cette publication peut être l'une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l'auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l'éditeur. NRC Publications Record / Notice d'Archives des publications de CNRC:http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/view/object/?id=6b5e526b-028e-4ef6-a829-7fe1cd320a97 http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=6b5e526b-028e-4ef6-a829-7fe1cd320a97 ORIGINAL ARTICLEComplementary approaches to searching MEDLINE may be sufficient for updating systematic reviews AbstractObjectives: To maximize the proportion of relevant studies identified for inclusion in systematic reviews (recall), complex timeconsuming Boolean searches across multiple databases are common. Although MEDLINE provides excellent coverage of health science evidence, it has proved challenging to achieve high levels of recall through Boolean searches alone.Study Design and Setting: Recall of one Boolean search method, the clinical query (CQ), combined with a ranking method, support vector machine (SVM), or PubMed-related articles, was tested against a gold standard of studies added to 6 updated Cochrane reviews and 10 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) evidence reviews. For the AHRQ sample, precision and temporal stability were examined for each method.Results: Recall of new studies was 0.69 for the CQ, 0.66 for related articles, 0.50 for SVM, 0.91 for the combination of CQ and related articles, and 0.89 for the combination of CQ and SVM. Precision was 0.11 for CQ and related articles combined, and 0.11 for CQ and SVM combined. Related articles showed least stability over time.Conclusions: The complementary combination of a Boolean search strategy and a ranking strategy appears to provide a robust method for identifying relevant studies in MEDLINE. Ó

show abstract

Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews

Cited by 81 publications

References 14 publications

Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence

Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence

Literature reviews: Patient-centred care

Complementary approaches to searching MEDLINE may be sufficient for updating systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About