Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18436902›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Is relevance relevant? User relevance ratings may not predict the impact of Internet search on decision outcomes.

Enrico W Coiera, Victor Vickland

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Enrico W CoieraCentre for Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, UNSW 2055, Australia. e.coiera@unsw.edu.au
Victor Vickland
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA common measure of Internet search engine effectiveness is its ability to find documents that a user perceives as 'relevant'. This study sought to test whether user provided relevance ratings for documents retrieved by an Internet search engine correlate with the decision outcome after use of a search engine.

design227 university students were asked to answer four randomly assigned consumer health questions, then to conduct an Internet search on one of two randomly assigned search engines of different performance, and to again answer the question. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were asked to provide a relevance score for each document retrieved as well as a pre and post search answer to each question.

resultsUser relevance rankings had little or no predictive power. Relevance rankings were unable to predict whether the user of a search engine could correctly answer a question after search and could not differentiate between two search engines with statistically different performance in the hands of users. Only when users had strong prior knowledge of the questions, and the decision task was of low complexity, did relevance appear to have modest predictive power.

conclusionsUser provided relevance rankings taken in isolation seem to be of limited to no value when designing a search engine that will be used in a general-purpose setting. Relevance rankings may have a place in situations in which experts provide rankings, and decision tasks are of complexity commensurate with the abilities of the raters. A more natural metric of search engine performance may be a user's ability to accurately complete a task, as this removes the inherent subjectivity of relevance rankings, and provides a direct and repeatable outcome measure which directly correlates with the performance of the search technology in the hands of users.

Indexed as

Decision MakingInternetHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Informatics

Identifiers

PMID18436902
PMCPMC2442252
OpenAlexW1633850195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.