ArticleBMJ open2012
Comparing the effectiveness of using generic and specific search terms in electronic databases to identify health outcomes for a systematic review: a prospective comparative study of literature search methods.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quantitative measures of health policy implementation determinants and outcomes: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- How robust is the evidence of an emerging or increasing female excess in physical morbidity between childhood and adolescence? Results of a systematic literature review and meta-analyses.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2013Pooled it
- BibliZap: An exploratory evaluation of an automated multi-level citation searching tool for systematic and rapid reviews.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Mapping large bodies of research in environmental sciences: insights from compiling evidence on the recovery and reuse of nutrients found in human excreta and domestic wastewater.Environmental evidence · 2025Article
- Article
- 40 years of research on eating disorders in domain-specific journals: Bibliometrics, network analysis, and topic modeling.PloS one · 2022Article
- Search Strategy for Search Performance; Off-the-cuff or Being Sensitive.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2019Article
- A Productive Proposed Search Syntax for Health Disaster Preparedness Research.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2019Review
- Author's reply to Paravidino et al.: Comment on: "Effect of exercise training on non-exercise physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials".Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Article
- Evidence mapping for decision making: feasibility versus accuracy - when to abandon high sensitivity in electronic searches.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2016Article
- Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2015Article
- Improving utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy: the three Rs (relevance, rigor, and readability [and resources]).American journal of public health · 2013Article
- Evaluating the impact and use of Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guidelines.BMJ open · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of systematic review literature searches that use either generic or specific terms for health outcomes.
designProspective comparative study of two electronic literature search strategies. The 'generic' search included general terms for health such as 'adolescent health', 'health status', 'morbidity', etc. The 'specific' search focused on terms for a range of specific illnesses, such as 'headache', 'epilepsy', 'diabetes mellitus', etc. DATA SOURCES: The authors searched Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and the Education Resources Information Center for studies published in English between 1992 and April 2010.
main outcome measuresNumber and proportion of studies included in the systematic review that were identified from each search.
resultsThe two searches tended to identify different studies. Of 41 studies included in the final review, only three (7%) were identified by both search strategies, 21 (51%) were identified by the generic search only and 17 (41%) were identified by the specific search only. 5 of the 41 studies were also identified through manual searching methods. Studies identified by the two ELS differed in terms of reported health outcomes, while each ELS uniquely identified some of the review's higher quality studies.
conclusionsElectronic literature searches (ELS) are a vital stage in conducting systematic reviews and therefore have an important role in attempts to inform and improve policy and practice with the best available evidence. While the use of both generic and specific health terms is conventional for many reviewers and information scientists, there are also reviews that rely solely on either generic or specific terms. Based on the findings, reliance on only the generic or specific approach could increase the risk of systematic reviews missing important evidence and, consequently, misinforming decision makers. However, future research should test the generalisability of these findings.
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.