Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22693047›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2012

Sensitivity and predictive value of 15 PubMed search strategies to answer clinical questions rated against full systematic reviews.

Thomas Agoritsas, Arnaud Merglen, Delphine S Courvoisier, Christophe Combescure, Nicolas Garin, Arnaud Perrier, Thomas V Perneger

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Outcomes of acute perilunate injuries-a systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Temporary spanning plate wrist fixation of complex distal radius fractures: a systematic review of 353 patients.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. The yield and usefulness of PAINArchives of physiotherapy · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Thomas AgoritsasDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. thomas.agoritsas@gmail.com
Arnaud Merglen
Delphine S Courvoisier
Christophe Combescure
Nicolas Garin
Arnaud Perrier
Thomas V Perneger

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinicians perform searches in PubMed daily, but retrieving relevant studies is challenging due to the rapid expansion of medical knowledge. Little is known about the performance of search strategies when they are applied to answer specific clinical questions.

objectiveTo compare the performance of 15 PubMed search strategies in retrieving relevant clinical trials on therapeutic interventions.

methodsWe used Cochrane systematic reviews to identify relevant trials for 30 clinical questions. Search terms were extracted from the abstract using a predefined procedure based on the population, interventions, comparison, outcomes (PICO) framework and combined into queries. We tested 15 search strategies that varied in their query (PIC or PICO), use of PubMed's Clinical Queries therapeutic filters (broad or narrow), search limits, and PubMed links to related articles. We assessed sensitivity (recall) and positive predictive value (precision) of each strategy on the first 2 PubMed pages (40 articles) and on the complete search output.

resultsThe performance of the search strategies varied widely according to the clinical question. Unfiltered searches and those using the broad filter of Clinical Queries produced large outputs and retrieved few relevant articles within the first 2 pages, resulting in a median sensitivity of only 10%-25%. In contrast, all searches using the narrow filter performed significantly better, with a median sensitivity of about 50% (all P < .001 compared with unfiltered queries) and positive predictive values of 20%-30% (P < .001 compared with unfiltered queries). This benefit was consistent for most clinical questions. Searches based on related articles retrieved about a third of the relevant studies.

conclusionsThe Clinical Queries narrow filter, along with well-formulated queries based on the PICO framework, provided the greatest aid in retrieving relevant clinical trials within the 2 first PubMed pages. These results can help clinicians apply effective strategies to answer their questions at the point of care.

Indexed as

Information Storage and RetrievalPubMed

Identifiers

PMID22693047
PMCPMC3414859

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.