Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25888523›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015

Collating the knowledge base for core outcome set development: developing and appraising the search strategy for a systematic review.

Elizabeth Gargon, Paula R Williamson, Mike Clarke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 7 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. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
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

3 authors.

Elizabeth GargonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. e.gargon@liv.ac.uk.
Paula R WilliamsonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. prw@liverpool.ac.uk.
Mike ClarkeAll Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. m.clarke@qub.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0901530Medical Research Council MR/J004847/1Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative is developing a publicly accessible online resource to collate the knowledge base for core outcome set development (COS) and the applied work from different health conditions. Ensuring that the database is as comprehensive as possible and keeping it up to date are key to its value for users. This requires the development and application of an optimal, multi-faceted search strategy to identify relevant material. This paper describes the challenges of designing and implementing such a search, outlining the development of the search strategy for studies of COS development, and, in turn, the process for establishing a database of COS.

methodsWe investigated the performance characteristics of this strategy including sensitivity, precision and numbers needed to read. We compared the contribution of databases towards identifying included studies to identify the best combination of methods to retrieve all included studies.

resultsRecall of the search strategies ranged from 4% to 87%, and precision from 0.77% to 1.13%. MEDLINE performed best in terms of recall, retrieving 216 (87%) of the 250 included records, followed by Scopus (44%). The Cochrane Methodology Register found just 4% of the included records. MEDLINE was also the database with the highest precision. The number needed to read varied between 89 (MEDLINE) and 130 (SCOPUS).

conclusionsWe found that two databases and hand searching were required to locate all of the studies in this review. MEDLINE alone retrieved 87% of the included studies, but actually 97% of the included studies were indexed on MEDLINE. The Cochrane Methodology Register did not contribute any records that were not found in the other databases, and will not be included in our future searches to identify studies developing COS. SCOPUS had the lowest precision rate (0.77) and highest number needed to read (130). In future COMET searches for COS a balance needs to be struck between the work involved in screening large numbers of records, the frequency of the searching and the likelihood that eligible studies will be identified by means other than the database searches.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicInformation Storage and RetrievalKnowledge BasesSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID25888523
PMCPMC4395975

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.