Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22393453›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Search filters for finding prognostic and diagnostic prediction studies in Medline to enhance systematic reviews.

Geert-Jan Geersing, Walter Bouwmeester, Peter Zuithoff, Rene Spijker, Mariska Leeflang, Karel G M Moons, Karel Moons

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 171 papers, 104 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
171citing papers in PubMed, 104 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

171 citing papers in PubMed, 104 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Prediction Models for Maternal and Offspring Short- and Long-Term Outcomes Following Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Audio-based digital biomarkers in diagnosing and managing respiratory diseases: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

111 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
    Moons, Kare [corrected to Moons, Karel G M].
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Geert-Jan GeersingJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. g.j.geersing@umcutrecht.nl
Walter Bouwmeester
Peter Zuithoff
Rene Spijker
Mariska Leeflang
Karel G M Moons
Karel Moons

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe interest in prognostic reviews is increasing, but to properly review existing evidence an accurate search filer for finding prediction research is needed. The aim of this paper was to validate and update two previously introduced search filters for finding prediction research in Medline: the Ingui filter and the Haynes Broad filter. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsBased on a hand search of 6 general journals in 2008 we constructed two sets of papers. Set 1 consisted of prediction research papers (n = 71), and set 2 consisted of the remaining papers (n = 1133). Both search filters were validated in two ways, using diagnostic accuracy measures as performance measures. First, we compared studies in set 1 (reference) with studies retrieved by the search strategies as applied in Medline. Second, we compared studies from 4 published systematic reviews (reference) with studies retrieved by the search filter as applied in Medline. Next--using word frequency methods--we constructed an additional search string for finding prediction research. Both search filters were good in identifying clinical prediction models: sensitivity ranged from 0.94 to 1.0 using our hand search as reference, and 0.78 to 0.89 using the systematic reviews as reference. This latter performance measure even increased to around 0.95 (range 0.90 to 0.97) when either search filter was combined with the additional string that we developed. Retrieval rate of explorative prediction research was poor, both using our hand search or our systematic review as reference, and even combined with our additional search string: sensitivity ranged from 0.44 to 0.85. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Explorative prediction research is difficult to find in Medline, using any of the currently available search filters. Yet, application of either the Ingui filter or the Haynes broad filter results in a very low number missed clinical prediction model studies.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiomedical ResearchComputational BiologyComputersDatabases, FactualHumansMEDLINEMultivariate AnalysisPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveSoftware

Identifiers

PMID22393453
PMCPMC3290602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.