ArticlePloS one2015
Is 'self-medication' a useful term to retrieve related publications in the literature? A systematic exploration of related terms.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Definition of self-medication: a scoping review.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-Medication (SM), i.e. using medications to treat oneself, is a major concern for health researchers and policy makers. The terms "self medication" or "self-medication" (SM terms) have been used to explain various concepts while several terms have also been employed to define this practice. Hence, retrieving relevant publications would require exhaustive literature screening. So, we assessed the current situation of SM terms in the literature to improve the relevancy of search outcomes.
methodsIn this Systematic exploration, SM terms were searched in the 6 following databases and publisher's portals till April 2012: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Google scholar, ScienceDirect, and Wiley. A simple search query was used to include only publications with SM terms. We used Relative-Risk (RR) to estimate the probability of SM terms use in related compared to unrelated publications. Sensitivity and specificity of SM terms as keywords in search query were also calculated. Relevant terms to SM practice were extracted and their Likelihood Ratio positive and negative (LR+/-) were calculated to assess their effect on the probability of search outcomes relevancy in addition to previous search queries. We also evaluated the content of unrelated publications. All mentioned steps were performed in title (TI) and title or abstract (TIAB) of publications.
results1999 related and 1917 unrelated publications were found. SM terms RR was 4.5 in TI and 2.1 in TIAB. SM terms sensitivity and specificity respectively were 55.4% and 87.7% in TI and 84.0% and 59.5% in TIAB. "OTC" and "Over-The-Counter Medication", with LR+ 16.78 and 16.30 respectively, provided the most conclusive increase in the probability of the relevancy of publications. The most common unrelated SM themes were self-medication hypothesis, drug abuse and Zoopharmacognosy.
conclusionsDue to relatively low specificity or sensitivity of SM terms, relevant terms should be employed in search queries and clear definitions of SM applications should be applied to improve the relevancy of publications.
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.