ArticleBMC medical research methodology2006
Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association between life satisfaction and health behaviours among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Pooled it
- Antipsychotic Drugs and Dysregulated Glucose Homeostasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic literature review of real-world evidence for treatments in HR+/HER2- second-line LABC/mBC after first-line treatment with CDK4/6i.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical Delays and Comparative Outcomes in Younger and Older Adults with Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Pooled it
- Time to diagnosis and treatment in younger adults with colorectal cancer: A systematic review.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Complications of cricothyroidotomy versus tracheostomy in emergency surgical airway management: a systematic review.BMC anesthesiology · 2020Pooled it
- Search strategies to identify observational studies in MEDLINE and Embase.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Subclinical thyroid dysfunction and the risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of epidemiology · 2014Pooled it
- Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Using multiple types of studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions--a systematic review.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Association between life satisfaction and health behaviours among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Review
- Translation and validation of PubMed and Embase search filters for identification of systematic reviews, intervention studies, and observational studies in the field of first aid.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviewsJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Study filters for non-randomized studies of interventions consistently lacked sensitivity upon external validation.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2018Review
- The STROBE extensions: protocol for a qualitative assessment of content and a survey of endorsement.BMJ open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth technology assessments of surgical interventions frequently require the inclusion of non-randomised evidence. Literature search strategies employed to identify this evidence often exclude a methodological component because of uncertainty surrounding the use of appropriate search terms. This can result in the retrieval of a large number of irrelevant records. Methodological filters would help to minimise this, making literature searching more efficient.
methodsAn objective approach was employed to develop MEDLINE and EMBASE filters, using a reference standard derived from screening the results of an electronic literature search that contained only subject-related terms. Candidate terms for MEDLINE (N = 37) and EMBASE (N = 35) were derived from examination of the records of the reference standard. The filters were validated on two sets of studies that had been included in previous health technology assessments.
resultsThe final filters were highly sensitive (MEDLINE 99.5%, EMBASE 100%, MEDLINE/EMBASE combined 100%) with precision ranging between 16.7%-21.1%, specificity 35.3%-43.5%, and a reduction in retrievals of over 30%. Against the validation standards, the individual filters retrieved 85.2%-100% of records. In combination, however, the MEDLINE and EMBASE filters retrieved 100% against both validation standards with a reduction in retrieved records of 28.4% and 30.1%
conclusionThe MEDLINE and EMBASE filters were highly sensitive and substantially reduced the number of records retrieved, indicating that they are useful tools for efficient literature searching.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.