Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25554521›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2015

Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments.

Suzanne K Linder, Geetanjali R Kamath, Gregory F Pratt, Smita S Saraykar, Robert J Volk

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 10 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. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors.

Suzanne K LinderDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Sealy Center on Aging, The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX 77555-0177, USA.
Geetanjali R KamathDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Gregory F PrattResearch Medical Library, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Smita S SaraykarDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Robert J VolkDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Sealy Center on Aging, The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX 77555-0177, USA. Electronic address: bvolk@mdanderson.org.

Funding

Patient Centered Outcomes Research in the ElderlyR24HS022134 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI GOODWIN, MD, JAMES S. · 2013 to 2017
$4.8M
Promoting Health Literacy for Colorectal Cancer ScreeningR21CA132669 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI VOLK, ROBERT J · 2009 to 2010
$377k
AHRQ HHS R24 HS022134AHRQ HHS R24HS022134NCI NIH HHS R21 CA132669
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of two search methods in identifying studies that used the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), a health care decision-making instrument commonly used in clinical settings. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingWe searched the literature using two methods: (1) keyword searching using variations of "Control Preferences Scale" and (2) cited reference searching using two seminal CPS publications. We searched three bibliographic databases [PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS)] and one full-text database (Google Scholar). We report precision and sensitivity as measures of effectiveness.

resultsKeyword searches in bibliographic databases yielded high average precision (90%) but low average sensitivity (16%). PubMed was the most precise, followed closely by Scopus and WOS. The Google Scholar keyword search had low precision (54%) but provided the highest sensitivity (70%). Cited reference searches in all databases yielded moderate sensitivity (45-54%), but precision ranged from 35% to 75% with Scopus being the most precise.

conclusionCited reference searches were more sensitive than keyword searches, making it a more comprehensive strategy to identify all studies that use a particular instrument. Keyword searches provide a quick way of finding some but not all relevant articles. Goals, time, and resources should dictate the combination of which methods and databases are used.

Indexed as

InternetAbstracting and IndexingDatabases, BibliographicDatabases, FactualDecision Support TechniquesHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalPubMedInformation sourcesInstrumentsMeta-analysesMethodologySearch methodsSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID25554521
PMCPMC4593621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.