ArticlePeerJ2015
An experimental search strategy retrieves more precise results than PubMed and Google for questions about medical interventions.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A simple heuristic for Internet-based evidence search in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.Advances in medical education and practice · 2016Article
- Automated Summarization of Publications Associated with Adverse Drug Reactions from PubMed.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2016Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective. We compared the precision of a search strategy designed specifically to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs with search strategies designed for broader purposes. Methods. We designed an experimental search strategy that automatically revised searches up to five times by using increasingly restrictive queries as long at least 50 citations were retrieved. We compared the ability of the experimental and alternative strategies to retrieve studies relevant to 312 test questions. The primary outcome, search precision, was defined for each strategy as the proportion of relevant, high quality citations among the first 50 citations retrieved. Results. The experimental strategy had the highest median precision (5.5%; interquartile range [IQR]: 0%-12%) followed by the narrow strategy of the PubMed Clinical Queries (4.0%; IQR: 0%-10%). The experimental strategy found the most high quality citations (median 2; IQR: 0-6) and was the strategy most likely to find at least one high quality citation (73% of searches; 95% confidence interval 68%-78%). All comparisons were statistically significant. Conclusions. The experimental strategy performed the best in all outcomes although all strategies had low precision.
Indexed as
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.